15510 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

merchants (FCMs) are subject. The revision 

to this rule, known as the ‘‘residual-interest 

requirement’’, clarified that one customer’s 

funds could not be used by an FCM to cover 

another customer’s margin deficit, but 

phased in a deadline for stricter compliance 

with this clarified standard. The change was 

designed to reduce risks to those customer 

funds placed in the care of FCMs, and were 

among a host of regulatory enhancements 

adopted by the Commission after two failures 

of large, registered FCMs in 2011 and 2012— 

MF Global and Peregrine Financial. 

I supported those regulatory 

enhancements—including the revision to 

rule 1.22—because of the importance of the 

matter addressed in each: The safekeeping of 

customer money, which is the most 

sacrosanct duty that any financial institution 

owes to its customers. Today, the overall 

framework of regulatory requirements that 

registered FCMs must comply with is 

substantially different today than in 2011. 

For example, FCMs are no longer permitted 

to use customer funds for in-house lending 

through repurchase agreements; they are 

subject to restrictions on the types of 

securities that customer funds can be 

invested in; they must pass on customer 

initial margin on a gross basis to the 

clearinghouse; through LSOC (legal 

segregation with operational comingling) 

they must legally segregate cleared swaps 

customer collateral on an individual basis; 

and they were required to significantly 

enhance their supervision of and accounting 

for customer funds. As a result, the risks 

posed to customers funds stewarded by 

FCMs have been significantly reduced. 

The recent customer protection 

rulemakings all were well intentioned, but 

indisputably carried some additional costs 

and burdens for both FCMs and their 

customers. The analysis was made at the 

time, however, that those burdens and costs 

were outweighed by the benefits to FCM 

customers, especially against the very recent 

backdrop of hundreds of millions of dollars 

of customer funds having been stolen, or tied 

up in a bankruptcy proceeding, for at least a 

period of time. 

The release before us essentially re-weighs 

the cost or burden on one hand, and the 

benefit on the other, and comes up with a 

slightly different, but well supported, 

conclusion regarding the residual-interest 

requirement. The costs or burdens revisited 

in the release: (1) Uncertainty to the 

marketplace invited by a time-of-settlement 

compliance deadline that was subject to 

future review by the Commission staff, which 

suggested a change could come to the 

requirements, but might not; and (2) the 

anticipated costs to FCMs of having to 

finance the funding to top up their 

customers’ margin deficits, or the cost to 

customers of pre-funding their margin 

accounts with FCMs. And the benefit at issue 

in the release: The value to an FCM customer 

of ensuring that its funds will never be 

borrowed by an FCM to cover another 

customer’s deficit. 

The inherent risk to this common practice 

by FCMs is that should an FCM become 

insolvent after it posts required margin to the 

clearinghouse, but before it collects margin 

deficits from all of its customers, the 

customers whose funds were used to cover a 

deficit might not see those funds again, or 

perhaps only after a protracted bankruptcy 

proceeding. This practice also is not 

technically compliant with how rule 1.22 is 

written, which prohibits FCMs from ‘‘using, 

or permitting the use of, the futures customer 

funds of one futures customer to purchase, 

margin, or settle the trades, contracts, or 

commodity options of, or to secure or extend 

the credit of, any person other than such 

futures customer.’’ 

This final rule keeps the residual-interest 

deadline at the close of business on the day 

following the margin-deficit calculation and 

eliminates the future deadline of the time of 

settlement on the day following the margindeficit calculation. The Commission staff is 

still required to perform a feasibility study to 

determine whether future, more aggressive 

residual-interest deadlines would be 

desirable. 

The comment file overwhelmingly 

supported the change in today’s final rule— 

in other words, commenters took the view 

that the potential costs associated with the 

2013 residual-interest rule appear to 

outweigh the risk that some of their funds 

could be lost in the event their FCM becomes 

insolvent after the time of settlement, but 

before an FCM collects margin deficits. 

Indeed, the risk that an FCM becomes 

insolvent during this precise timeframe 

without some prior notice to its customers of 

financial stress at the FCM is very low. 

Notably, many comments supporting this 

final rule were filed by FCM customers, the 

constituency rule 1.22 is designed to protect, 

and who appreciate the aforementioned risk. 

The Commission must respect the comment 

process and the FCM-customer viewpoint 

that today’s rule better balances the cost and 

benefits of rule 1.22. 

Another relevant factor that supports the 

change to rule 1.22 is the risk of 

concentration within the FCM community as 

a whole, and what that means for the costs 

to customers of trading in derivatives and its 

related impacts on liquidity in those markets. 

The number of registered FCMs has 

decreased in recent years, which may make 

it more difficult for customers to manage 

their risk by limiting their ability to access 

the markets, or by making it more difficult for 

them to allocate funds between multiple 

FCMs to minimize concentration risk. 

The results of the public comment process, 

when considered in the context of the overall 

stronger regulatory framework for FCMs and 

the concentration in the FCM community 

described above, give me the comfort needed 

to support the changes to 1.22 contained in 

today’s release. 

On the other hand, without the five-year 

phase-in period, we might see a reluctance by 

the industry to move as swiftly to streamline 

margin-collection practices and to take 

advantage of any technological solutions that 

may be developed. Some recent technology 

advances hold the promise to reduce the very 

sorts of risks addressed by rule 1.22 by 

facilitating real-time margin collection and 

settlement. To be sure, those advances would 

have been more seriously and expeditiously 

tested and—if they demonstrate merit— 

embraced without the change to rule 1.22 we 

are releasing today. In other words, just as in 

2013 when the existing rule was finalized, I 

continue to believe that the most costly 

solutions for complying with rule 1.22 that 

were anticipated by many commenters 

should not be the ones ultimately embraced 

by the marketplace. Moreover, given 

regulatory requirements imposed by other 

regulators, today members of the clearing 

ecosystem are exploring a variety of solutions 

to new compliance and capital burdens that 

also would ease and enable stricter 

compliance with rule 1.22, thus minimizing 

further the likelihood that pre-funding 

customer margin accounts with FCMs will 

become the preferred solution to compliance. 

Finally, I note that a study and roundtable 

to review these advancements, and how they 

might lower risks and related costs, still are 

mandated by law, and I ask the Chairman to 

direct staff to move swiftly to comply with 

these regulatory requirements so that the 

Commission may act appropriately when and 

if it needs to. I look forward to continuing to 

collaborate with staff and market participants 

as we work towards enhancing the safety and 

efficiency of our markets. 

Appendix 4—Statement of 

Commissioner J. Christopher Giancarlo 

I support the Commission’s action to 

change the residual interest deadline, if 

necessary or appropriate, only upon a 

Commission rulemaking following a public 

comment period. This approach will allow 

the Commission to better understand the 

market impacts and operational challenges of 

moving the residual interest deadline. This 

approach is especially important given the 

likely negative impacts on smaller futures 

commission merchants who provide our 

farmers, ranchers and rural producers with 

critical risk management services. 

I call on the Commission to take the same 

deliberative approach to the de minimis 

exception to the swap dealer definition so 

that the de minimis level does not 

automatically adjust from $8 billion to $3 

billion, absent a rulemaking with proper 

notice and comment. Like today’s proposal, 

the Commission should only adjust the de 

minimis threshold if necessary or appropriate 

after it has considered the data and weighed 

public comments. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06548 Filed 3–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234; FRL–9923–98– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS39 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and 

Oil-Fired Electric Steam Generating 

Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 15511 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On November 19, 2014, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

proposed amending certain reporting 

requirements in the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Steam 

Generating Units (Mercury and Air 

Toxics Standards (MATS)) rule. This 

final rule amends the reporting 

requirements in the MATS rule by 

temporarily requiring owners or 

operators of affected sources to submit 

certain required emissions and 

compliance reports to the EPA through 

the Emissions Collection and 

Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS) Client 

Tool, and the rule temporarily suspends 

the requirement for owners or operators 

of affected sources to submit certain 

reports using the Compliance and 

Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

(CEDRI). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

March 24, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publically 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA 

WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

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

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Barrett Parker, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (D243–05), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–5635; fax 

number: (919) 541–3207; and email 

address: parker.barrett@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Organization of This Document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. Why is the EPA issuing a final rule? 

II. Does this final rule apply to me? 

III. What are the amendments made by this 

final rule? 

IV. Public Comments and Responses 

A. Support for the Proposed Approach 

B. Opposition to the Proposed Approach 

C. Other Comments 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

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 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

I. Why is the EPA issuing a final rule? 

The EPA is finalizing its proposed 

rule with revisions, and this final rule 

replaces the existing requirements that 

became effective on January 5, 2015, 

pursuant to a direct final rule published 

on November 19, 2014. See 79 FR 68840 

and 79 FR 68795. We also respond to 

comments in this final rule. See 79 FR 

68796. 

II. Does this final rule apply to me? 

Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by this final rule include: 

Category NAICS Code1 Examples of Regulated Entities 

Industry ....................................................................................... 221112 Fossil fuel-fired electric steam generating units. 

Federal government 2 .................................................................. 221122 Fossil fuel-fired electric steam generating units owned by the 

federal government. 

State/local/tribal government 2 .................................................... 221122 Fossil fuel-fired electric steam generating units owned by 

states, tribes or municipalities. 

921150 Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units in Indian 

country. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

2Federal, state or local government-owned and operated establishments are classified according to the activity in which they are engaged. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this final rule. To 

determine whether your facility would 

be regulated by this final rule, you 

should examine the applicability 

criteria in 40 CFR 63.9981. If you have 

any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult either the air 

permitting authority for the entity or 

your EPA regional representative as 

listed in 40 CFR 63.13. 

III. What are the amendments made by 

this final rule? 

This final rule amends the reporting 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.10031(f) of 

the MATS rule at 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart UUUUU. The final MATS rule 

required affected sources to submit 

certain MATS emissions and 

compliance information electronically, 

using either the CEDRI or the ECMPS 

Client Tool. The EPA developed these 

two systems prior to the MATS rule for 

the electronic submittal of emissions 

data from many source categories. 

CEDRI is currently used by owners or 

operators of sources regulated under 40 

CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 63 to 

submit performance test reports and 

other air emissions reports. ECMPS is 

used to report emissions data under the 

Clean Air Act title IV Acid Rain 

Program and other programs that are 

required to continuously monitor and 

report emissions according to 40 CFR 

part 75. These two systems have 

enhanced the way source owners and 

operators report emissions data to the 

EPA by providing a streamlined and 

standardized electronic approach. 

Subsequent to publication of the 

MATS rule, stakeholders commented 

that we could improve the reporting 

efficiency of the MATS rule by requiring 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
15512 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

all data to be reported to one system 

instead of two. Stakeholders also 

commented that one system could 

benefit the EPA and the public in the 

review of data submitted by setting one 

consistent format for all data reported 

through MATS. Further, because the 

vast majority of sources covered under 

the MATS rule have been using the 

ECMPS Client Tool since 2009, the 

stakeholders have encouraged the EPA 

to consider consolidating the electronic 

reporting under ECMPS. 

We agree that requiring reporting to 

one system will increase the efficiency 

of reporting and facilitate review of 

reported data. For these reasons, the 

agency is beginning the process of 

consolidating the submission of 

electronic reports required under the 

MATS rule to one system—the ECMPS 

Client Tool. This final rule is the first 

step in the process. The next step is for 

the EPA to create a detailed set of 

reporting instructions and design, 

develop, beta-test and implement the 

necessary modifications to the ECMPS 

Client Tool; however, the EPA cannot 

complete the second step prior to April 

16, 2015, the compliance deadline for 

the MATS rule. Therefore, we are 

implementing a phased approach to 

completing the change in the electronic 

reporting requirements. 

This final rulemaking completes the 

first step in the agency’s plan by 

removing the requirement to submit 

MATS compliance reports to CEDRI and 

requiring source owners or operators to 

use the ECMPS Client Tool to submit 

Portable Document Format (PDF) 

versions of the reports that the current 

MATS rule requires to be submitted 

using CEDRI. As stated above, this 

interim step is necessary because the 

ECMPS Client Tool is not currently 

programmed to accept the reports that 

the MATS rule required sources to 

submit to CEDRI. The specific reports 

that must be submitted in PDF format 

include: Quarterly and annual 

performance stack test reports; 30- (or 

90-) boiler operating day mercury (Hg) 

Low Emitting EGU (Electric Generating 

Unit) (LEE) test reports; Relative 

Accuracy Test Audits (RATA) reports 

for sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, 

hydrogen fluoride, and Hg monitors; 

Relative Calibration Audit (RCA) and 

Relative Response Audit (RRA) reports 

for particulate matter (PM) continuous 

emissions monitoring system (CEMS); 

30-boiler operating day rolling average 

reports for PM CEMS, PM continuous 

parameter monitoring system (CPMS), 

and approved hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) metals CEMS; and semiannual 

compliance reports. Reports for the 

performance stack tests, Hg LEE tests, 

RATAs, RRAs and RCAs typically 

include a description of the source, the 

test date(s), a list of attendees, a test 

protocol, a summary of results, raw field 

data, and example calculations, and, 

depending on the method(s) used, may 

also include the results of sample 

analyses, quality-assurance information 

(e.g., leak, bias and drift checks), and 

instrument calibrations and calibration 

gas certificates. This final rule does not 

alter the due dates for any report 

submittals contained in the final MATS 

rule. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

UUUUU. 

The EPA recognized that submitting 

electronic PDF reports is not as 

desirable as reporting the data in 

extensible markup language (XML) 

format, because the information in a 

PDF report cannot easily be extracted 

and put in a database format. In view of 

this, we plan to promulgate an 

additional data reporting revision to the 

MATS rule in the second part of our 

phased approach. In this second part, 

we plan to develop another rulemaking 

that requires affected source owners or 

operators to submit the data elements 

required in the rule in a structured XML 

format using the ECMPS Client Tool, 

which is already in use. The second part 

of our phased approach will complete 

the process of conversion of the 

electronic reporting of data using the 

ECMPS Client Tool, and the MATS rule 

will be revised to specify all of the 

required XML data elements for each 

type of report. We also plan to develop 

a detailed set of reporting instructions 

for each report and to modify ECMPS 

accordingly, in order to be able to 

receive and process the data submitted. 

In the event we are unable to finalize 

the rulemaking for the second part of 

our phased approach for electronic 

reporting conversion by April 16, 2017, 

the reporting requirements established 

in this final rule will revert 

automatically to the original 

requirements set forth in the final 

MATS rulemaking published on 

February 16, 2012 (77 FR 9303). This 

trigger is necessary to ensure that the 

data submitted in the future is 

consistent with the database 

accessibility that is associated with 

information reported in structured XML 

formats even if the second rulemaking 

cannot be finalized. Accordingly, this 

rulemaking includes a date of April 16, 

2017, to complete the second part of our 

phased approach for electronic 

reporting conversion to the ECMPS 

Client Tool. The EPA intends to revoke 

this requirement once the final 

conversion to the ECMPS Client Tool is 

complete. 

IV. Public Comments and Responses 

The direct final and parallel proposed 

rules received comments from nine 

persons—two members of the public, 

one state government representative, 

four EGU owners or operators and two 

EGU industry representatives. 

A. Support for the Proposed Approach 

Most commenters expressed support 

for the planned two phased approach 

for merging the electronic reporting 

systems, as well as the revisions to 

allow temporary submission of MATS 

rule emissions and compliance reports 

through the ECMPS Client Tool and 

suspension of mandatory submission of 

certain reports using the CEDRI. 

Commenters recognized the benefits 

afforded by the proposed approach, 

noting that through the use of the 

transition period, the agency will be 

able to obtain the necessary information 

to assure compliance while 

simultaneously developing final 

reporting formats and infrastructure for 

XML reporting. Commenters agree that 

consolidating all reporting requirements 

through one system will streamline and 

simplify requirements, making reporting 

more efficient and user-friendly, 

improve the quality of reported 

emissions data and enable the agency to 

track compliance effectively. We 

reviewed and considered these 

comments and are finalizing the 

proposed rule, with minor revisions, to 

implement the first part of our phased 

approach to merge all MATS rule 

electronic reporting into the ECMPS 

Client Tool. 

B. Opposition to the Proposed Approach 

One commenter, a state government 

representative, opposed the provisions 

of the proposed rule on two grounds: (1) 

The commenter alleges the rule did not 

contain a requirement for EGU owners 

or operators to submit full stack test 

reports; and (2) the commenter indicates 

that it is improper to include a 

temporary suspension of the 

requirement to use the electronic 

reporting tool (ERT) in preparing and 

submitting stack test reports 

electronically. 

With regard to the first item, the EPA 

maintains that the proposed rule did 

include a requirement to submit 

complete performance test reports 

during the interim period. In the 

proposed rule, the EPA stated that stack 

test reports were required to be 

submitted during the transition period: 

‘‘. . . (t)he specific reports that must be 

submitted in PDF format include: 

Quarterly and annual performance stack 

test reports . . .’’ and ‘‘. . . (r)eports for 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 15513 

the performance stack tests . . . 

typically include a description of the 

source, the test date(s), a list of 

attendees, a test protocol, a summary of 

results, raw field data, and example 

calculations, and, depending on the 

method(s) used, may also include the 

results of sample analyses, qualityassurance information (e.g., bias and 

drift checks), instrument calibrations, 

and calibration gas certificates . . .’’ (79 

FR 68797). Other commenters agreed 

with the EPA’s view of the requirements 

while some believed that the 

requirement to submit the test reports 

was only triggered upon request by the 

permitting authority. To address any 

ambiguity on this issue, we are revising 

the proposed rule and expressly 

requiring submission of emissions test 

reports in the final rule. 

With regard to the second item, we 

agree with the state representative who 

commented that ‘‘. . . (s)ubmittal of 

stack test reports using ERT will allow 

(regulatory agencies) to independently 

verify emissions calculations without 

having to re-enter data into separate 

spreadsheets for re-calculation. ERT 

does the calculations and can include 

all raw field and laboratory data as 

attachments . . . .’’ These are among the 

reasons we mandated use of the ERT in 

both the Information Collection Request 

and the MATS rule. Moreover, we agree 

with the state representative that the 

‘‘. . . ERT can generate a full PDF report 

that could be submitted to ECMPS with 

minimal effort . . . .’’ Indeed, we 

maintain that using the ‘‘one-touch’’ 

ERT feature to create PDF versions of 

ERT-developed reports is the easiest 

way to meet the interim electronic 

reporting requirements. However, at the 

present time, the ERT does not support 

every MATS rule-related test method, 

quality assurance approach or 

performance specification (PS), e.g., 

RCA or RRA for PM CEMS and PS–11 

for PM CEMS. Moreover, despite the 

efficiency and ease of using the ‘‘onetouch’’ capability of the ERT for the 

majority of MATS rule related test 

methods, quality assurance approaches 

or PS, the ERT is not the sole means of 

developing PDF versions of required 

reports. We considered requiring EGU 

owners or operators to use the ERT’s 

PDF creation feature for those reports 

that can be developed through the 

current version of the ERT, but decided 

against it for concerns that mandated 

use of two separate systems during the 

interim period could be inefficient. 

While we believe many EGU owners or 

operators will choose to use the ERT’s 

cost-effective PDF creation approach 

when possible, the rule does not require 

its use. 

C. Other Comments 

Even though comments on the 

proposed rule were to be limited to 

issues directly associated with the 

electronic reporting changes covered in 

40 CFR 63.10031, commenters provided 

other comments. One industry 

representative sought assurance that 

under the interim rule, EGU owners or 

operators could use self-generated forms 

that included relevant information per 

the aforementioned preamble language 

(79 CFR 68797), going on to assert that 

the only formatting specification is that 

the reports be submitted in PDF format. 

The industry representative expressed 

support for the proposed rule if those 

assertions were correct. Commenters are 

correct, provided the necessary 

information is included in a reasonable 

manner to allow review in the electronic 

PDF versions of the reports. 

Industry commenters also opposed 

the proposed rule to the extent it 

required EGU owners or operators to use 

the ERT or CEDRI forms to create the 

reports that will be submitted in PDF 

format, believing that the rule revision 

would not provide any relief if their 

understanding were correct. While we 

disagree with the commenters’ views 

that using the ERT or CEDRI to create 

PDF versions of reports or forms would 

not provide relief, the rule neither 

requires nor prohibits during the 

interim period preparation or 

submission of PDF reports or forms 

using the ERT or CEDRI. We also note 

that the current versions of the ERT or 

CEDRI do support notice of compliance 

(NOC) status reporting and the majority 

of MATS rule-related test methods, 

quality assurance approaches and PS, 

including all associated requisite 

calculations and validations. For this 

reason, the commenters’ concerns are 

misplaced. 

Industry commenters also commented 

that some in the regulated community 

might be confused over the reporting 

requirements and misinterpret the 

provisions such that only PDF versions 

of ERT or CEDRI generated reports or 

forms would be allowed for submission 

during the interim period. Both 

commenters suggested we provide 

guidance, or, if necessary, additional 

rule language after the first sentence of 

40 CFR 63.10031(f)(6), to clarify the role 

of the ERT and CEDRI for data submittal 

during the interim reporting phase. We 

considered these comments and decided 

that such guidance or rule language is 

unnecessary, as the ERT is not required 

to be used during the interim period. 

With regard to reporting requirements 

during the transition period, as 

mentioned earlier, the use of the CEDRI 

to submit reports to our WebFIRE 

database will be suspended, the 

information that would have been 

reported through the CEDRI must be 

submitted to the ECMPS in PDF format 

and the deadline for submitting reports 

remains unchanged. We will make the 

necessary adjustments to the ECMPS to 

enable the PDF reports to be submitted. 

Note that submission of a PDF version 

of a test report during this interim 

period is sufficient, provided that the 

test report contains sufficient 

information to assess compliance and to 

determine whether the testing has been 

done properly. 

One commenter expressed concern 

with using the ERT and CEDRI in the 

interim period because, in his view, 

those platforms are not capable of 

accepting certain MATS reports, such as 

NOC status reports and 30-boiler 

operating day averages from PM CEMS. 

Moreover, the commenter believes using 

the ERT would be inefficient because, in 

his view, it was not designed to handle 

MATS rule data, such as those from PS– 

11, RCAs and RRAs. Finally, the 

commenter believes the usefulness of 

ERT collected data is limited because, in 

his view, the ERT neither performs the 

requisite calculations for quality 

assurance tests nor validates test results 

in accordance with method acceptance 

criteria. As stated above, the rule neither 

requires nor prohibits during the 

interim period preparation or 

submission of PDF reports or forms 

using the ERT or CEDRI. We also note 

that the current versions of the ERT or 

CEDRI do support NOC status reporting 

and the majority of MATS rule related 

test methods, quality assurance 

approaches and PS, including all 

associated requisite calculations and 

validations. While not a part of this 

rulemaking, we soon expect the ERT 

will be able to handle all of the 

remaining MATS rule related test 

methods, quality assurance approaches 

and PS, which will be important if the 

agency does not complete the revisions 

to the ECMPS. In addition, we expect 

the ECMPS Client Tool to be revised to 

accept all MATS rule related electronic 

reporting during the second part of our 

phased approach such that the ECMPS 

will be the sole means for providing 

MATS reports electronically. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
15514 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was, therefore, not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. OMB has previously approved the 

information collection activities 

contained in the existing regulations 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0567. The agency believes this 

action does not impose an information 

collection burden because it does not 

change the information collection 

requirements. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. This amendment does not 

create any new requirements or 

burdens, and no costs are associated 

with this amendment. See 79 FR 68795 

at 68798 (November 19, 2014). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local or tribal governments or 

the private sector. 

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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. The final amendments 

impose no requirements on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying to those regulatory 

actions that concern environmental 

health or safety risks that the EPA has 

reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. This action does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. The 

final amendments are either 

clarifications or alternate, temporary 

reporting instructions which will 

neither increase nor decrease 

environmental protection. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: March 9, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSIONS 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE 

CATEGORIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart UUUUU-National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric 

Steam Generating Units 

■ 2. Section 63.10031 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the first sentence in each 

of the following paragraphs: (f) 

introductory text, (f)(1), (2), and (4); and 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (f)(5) and (6). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 63.10031 What reports must I submit and 

when? 

* * * * * 

(f) On or after April 16, 2017, within 

60 days after the date of completing 

each performance test, you must submit 

the performance test reports required by 

this subpart to EPA’s WebFIRE database 

by using the Compliance and Emissions 

Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is 

accessed through EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) (www.epa.gov/cdx). 

* * * 

(1) On or after April 16, 2017, within 

60 days after the date of completing 

each CEMS (SO2, PM, HCl, HF, and Hg) 

performance evaluation test, as defined 

in § 63.2 and required by this subpart, 

you must submit the relative accuracy 

test audit (RATA) data (or, for PM 

CEMS, RCA and RRA data) required by 

this subpart to EPA’s WebFIRE database 

by using CEDRI that is accessed through 

EPA’s CDX (www.epa.gov/cdx). * * * 

(2) On or after April 16, 2017, for a 

PM CEMS, PM CPMS, or approved 

alternative monitoring using a HAP 

metals CEMS, within 60 days after the 

reporting periods ending on March 31st, 

June 30th, September 30th, and 

December 31st, you must submit 

quarterly reports to EPA’s WebFIRE 

database by using the CEDRI that is 

accessed through EPA’s CDX 

(www.epa.gov/cdx). * * * 

* * * * * 

(4) On or after April 16, 2017, submit 

the compliance reports required under 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section 

and the notification of compliance 

status required under § 63.10030(e) to 

EPA’s WebFIRE database by using the 

CEDRI that is accessed through EPA’s 

CDX (www.epa.gov/cdx). * * * 

(5) All reports required by this 

subpart not subject to the requirements 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 15515 

in paragraphs (f) introductory text and 

(f)(1) through (4) of this section must be 

sent to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 63.13. If 

acceptable to both the Administrator 

and the owner or operator of an EGU, 

these reports may be submitted on 

electronic media. The Administrator 

retains the right to require submittal of 

reports subject to paragraphs (f) 

introductory text and (f)(1) through (4) 

of this section in paper format. 

(6) Prior to April 16, 2017, all reports 

subject to electronic submittal in 

paragraphs (f) introductory text, (f)(1), 

(2), and (4) shall be submitted to the 

EPA at the frequency specified in those 

paragraphs in electronic portable 

document format (PDF) using the 

ECMPS Client Tool. Each PDF version 

of a submitted report must include 

sufficient information to assess 

compliance and to demonstrate that the 

testing was done properly. The 

following data elements must be entered 

into the ECMPS Client Tool at the time 

of submission of each PDF file: 

(i) The facility name, physical 

address, mailing address (if different 

from the physical address), and county; 

(ii) The ORIS code (or equivalent ID 

number assigned by EPA’s Clean Air 

Markets Division (CAMD)) and the 

Facility Registry System (FRS) ID; 

(iii) The EGU (or EGUs) to which the 

report applies. Report the EGU IDs as 

they appear in the CAMD Business 

System; 

(iv) If any of the EGUs in paragraph 

(f)(6)(iii) of this section share a common 

stack, indicate which EGUs share the 

stack. If emissions data are monitored 

and reported at the common stack 

according to part 75 of this chapter, 

report the ID number of the common 

stack as it is represented in the 

electronic monitoring plan required 

under § 75.53 of this chapter; 

(v) If any of the EGUs described in 

paragraph (f)(6)(iii) of this section are in 

an averaging plan under § 63.10009, 

indicate which EGUs are in the plan and 

whether it is a 30- or 90-day averaging 

plan; 

(vi) The identification of each 

emission point to which the report 

applies. An ‘‘emission point’’ is a point 

at which source effluent is released to 

the atmosphere, and is either a 

dedicated stack that serves one of the 

EGUs identified in paragraph (f)(6)(iii) 

of this section or a common stack that 

serves two or more of those EGUs. To 

identify an emission point, associate it 

with the EGU or stack ID in the CAMD 

Business system or the electronic 

monitoring plan (e.g., ‘‘Unit 2 stack,’’ 

‘‘common stack CS001,’’ or ‘‘multiple 

stack MS001’’); 

(vii) The rule citation (e.g., 

§ 63.10031(f)(1), § 63.10031(f)(2), etc.) 

for which the report is showing 

compliance; 

(viii) The pollutant(s) being addressed 

in the report; 

(ix) The reporting period being 

covered by the report (if applicable); 

(x) The relevant test method that was 

performed for a performance test (if 

applicable); 

(xi) The date the performance test was 

conducted (if applicable); and 

(xii) The responsible official’s name, 

title, and phone number. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–06152 Filed 3–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 721 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014–0702; FRL–9924–09] 

RIN 2070–AB27 

Revocation of Significant New Uses of 

Metal Salts of Complex Inorganic 

Oxyacids 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is revoking the 

significant new use rule (SNUR) 

promulgated under section 5(a)(2) of the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 

for two chemical substances that were 

identified generically as metal salts of 

complex inorganic oxyacids, which 

were the subject of premanufacture 

notices (PMNs) P–89–576 and P–89– 

577. EPA issued a SNUR based on a 

TSCA section 5(e) consent order 

designating certain activities as 

significant new uses. EPA has received 

test data for the chemical substances 

and is revoking the SNUR. 

DATES: This final rule is effective May 

26, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014–0702, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

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

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPPT 

Docket is (202) 566–0280. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Jim 

Alwood, Chemical Control Division, 

Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: 202 564–8974; email address: 

alwood.jim@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you manufacture 

(including import), process, or use the 

chemical substances contained in this 

rule. Potentially affected entities may 

include, but are not limited to: 

• Manufacturers or processors of the 

chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 

and 324110), e.g., chemical 

manufacturing and petroleum refineries. 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. To determine whether 

you or your business may be affected by 

this action, you should carefully 

examine the applicability provisions in 

§ 721.5. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the 

technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

This action may also affect certain 

entities through pre-existing import 

certification and export notification 

rules under TSCA. Chemical importers 

are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 

U.S.C. 2612) import certification 

requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 

12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 

127.28. Chemical importers must certify 

that the shipment of the chemical 

substance complies with all applicable 

rules and orders under TSCA. Importers 

of chemicals subject to a SNUR must 

certify their compliance with the SNUR 

requirements. The EPA policy in 

support of import certification appears 

at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. Importers 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES