33392 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 72 and 75 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0837; FRL–9148–1] 

RIN 2060–AQ06 

Amendments to the Protocol Gas 

Verification Program and Minimum 

Competency Requirements for Air 

Emission Testing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed Rule; Reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: Recent EPA gas audit results 

indicate that some gas cylinders used to 

calibrate continuous emission 

monitoring systems on stationary 

sources do not meet EPA’s performance 

specification. Reviews of stack test 

reports in recent years indicate that 

some stack testers do not properly 

follow EPA test methods or do not 

correctly calculate test method results. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to amend 

its Protocol Gas Verification Program 

(PGVP) and the minimum competency 

requirements for air emission testing 

(formerly air emission testing body 

requirements) to improve the accuracy 

of emissions data. EPA is also proposing 

to amend other sections of the Acid 

Rain Program continuous emission 

monitoring system regulations by 

adding and clarifying certain 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements, removing the provisions 

pertaining to mercury monitoring and 

reporting, removing certain 

requirements associated with a classapproved alternative monitoring system, 

disallowing the use of a particular 

quality assurance option in EPA 

Reference Method 7E, adding an 

incorporation by reference that was 

inadvertently left out of the January 24, 

2008 final rule, and clarifying the 

language and applicability of certain 

provisions. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 12, 2010. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on 

the information collection provisions 

are best assured of having full effect if 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) receives a copy of your 

comments on or before July 12, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0837 (which includes 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005– 

0132, and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0800), by one of the 

following methods: 

• 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 fuelfired boilers, turbines, and combined 

cycle units that serve generators that 

produce electricity for sale or cogenerate 

electricity for sale and steam. Regulated 

categories and entities include: 

Category NAICS code Examples of potentially 

regulated industries 

Industry .......................................................................... 221112 and others ........................................................ Electric service providers. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. This table lists 

the types of entities which EPA is now 

aware could potentially be regulated by 

this action. Other types of entities not 

listed in this table could also be 

regulated. To determine whether your 

facility, company, business, 

organization, etc., is regulated by this 

action, you should carefully examine 

the applicability provisions in §§ 72.6, 

72.7, and 72.8 of title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations. If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Considerations in Preparing 

Comments for EPA. 

A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 classapproved alternative monitoring system, 

disallowing the use of a particular 

quality assurance option in EPA 

Reference Method 7E, adding an 

incorporation by reference that was 

inadvertently left out of the January 24, 

2008 final rule, and clarifying the 

language and applicability of certain 

provisions. 

A. Amendments to the Protocol Gas 

Verification Program 

The purpose of the proposed EPA 

Protocol Gas Verification Program 

(PGVP) is to ensure the accuracy of EPA 

Protocol gases. EPA proposes to require 

that the owner or operator of a Part 75 

affected source ensure that all 

calibration gases used to quality assure 

the operation of instrumentation meet 

the definition of calibration gas 

contained in § 72.2, and the relevant 

provision in Section 5.1 of Appendix A 

of Part 75. In turn, § 72.2 defines 

calibration gas to include, among other 

things, EPA Protocol gas. EPA Protocol 

gas is a calibration gas mixture prepared 

and analyzed according to Section 2 of 

the ‘‘EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay 

and Certification of Gaseous Calibration 

Standards,’’ or such revised procedure 

as approved by the Administrator. All of 

the other calibration gases defined in 

§ 72.2 are analyzed by the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) or are produced following a more 

rigorous procedure and are presumed 

more accurate (and costly) than EPA 

Protocol gases. Therefore, only EPA 

Protocol gases are included in the PGVP 

described in today’s proposed rule. The 

proposed rule would revise § 75.21 to 

require a Part 75 affected source that 

uses EPA Protocol gas to obtain it from 

an EPA Protocol gas production site 

which is on the EPA list of sites 

participating in the PGVP at the time the 

owner or operator procures the gases. 

EPA is proposing that any EPA 

Protocol gas production site that 

chooses to participate in the PGVP must 

notify the Administrator of its intent to 

participate. EPA would then issue a 

unique vendor identification number 

(ID) to the EPA Protocol gas production 

site (e.g., a company’s four participating 

EPA Protocol gas production sites might 

be issued vendor IDs: 75.1, 75.2, 75.3 

and 75.4). Affected units would report 

the vendor ID as a required data element 

in each electronic quarterly report, thus 

confirming that the affected unit’s 

calibration gases are being supplied by 

a participating EPA Protocol gas 

production site. 

Proposed § 75.21(g) would require an 

EPA Protocol gas production site to 

notify EPA of its participation in the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33394 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

PGVP by following the instructions on 

the Forms page of the Clean Air Markets 

Division (CAMD) Web site (notification 

will likely be through an official EPA email box). Initial participation in the 

program would commence on the date 

of notification and would extend from 

that date through the remainder of the 

calendar year. An EPA Protocol gas 

production site that elects to continue 

participating in the PGVP in the next 

calendar year would be required to 

notify the Administrator of its intent to 

continue in the program by December 

31 of the current year. The names of 

EPA Protocol gas production sites 

participating in the PGVP would be 

made publicly available by posting on 

official EPA Web sites. EPA believes 

that annual posting will be frequent 

enough to allow EPA Protocol gas users 

to verify that their calibration gases are 

being provided by PGVP participants. 

The contents of the initial notification 

and subsequent re-notification(s) would 

be as follows: 

(i) The specialty gas company name 

which owns or operates the EPA 

Protocol gas production site; 

(ii) The name and address of that 

participating EPA Protocol gas 

production site owned or operated by 

the specialty gas company; and 

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

telephone number of a contact person 

for that participating EPA Protocol gas 

production site. 

If any of the above information 

changes during the year, updates may be 

sent to EPA, and Agency Web sites will 

be amended accordingly. 

Under the PGVP as proposed, the 

Agency may annually audit up to four 

EPA Protocol gas cylinders from each 

participating EPA Protocol gas 

production site. The same number and 

type of cylinders (i.e., cylinders with the 

same certified components, 

approximately the same certified 

component concentration, and same 

number of certified components) would 

be obtained from each participating EPA 

Protocol gas production site that 

produces such cylinders to allow for 

better intercompany comparisons. 

Each year, EPA intends to audit all 

participating EPA Protocol gas 

production sites that produce the type 

of gas being audited, and to obtain EPA 

Protocol gas cylinders that are as 

representative of the normal production 

process as possible, given the limited 

sample size. To achieve this goal, the 

Agency intends to obtain cylinders in 

such a way that an EPA Protocol gas 

production site is not aware that its 

cylinders are being audited. In the past, 

the Agency has hired a company that 

uses EPA Protocol gas cylinders as part 

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 

§§ 75.21(g)(9)(ii)–(v) would be provided 

in an audit report submitted 

electronically by NIST to EPA at the end 

of the current (annual) audit. The 

Agency would post on EPA Web sites 

the results of the NIST analysis in the 

same format as Figure 3 (or the Note 

below Figure 3, as applicable) or a 

revised format approved by EPA. 

EPA believes that owners or operators 

of Part 75 affected units will use the 

results of the NIST analysis to better 

inform their EPA Protocol gas purchase 

decisions. We specifically request 

comment on whether the format and 

information contained in proposed 

Figure 3 and the Note below Figure 3 

are useful for this purpose. 

In proposed § 75.21(g)(4), EPA would 

reserve the right to remove an EPA 

Protocol gas production site from the 

list of PGVP participants for any of the 

following reasons: 

(1) If the production site fails to 

provide all of the information required 

by § 75.21(g)(1), specifically, items (i) 

through (iii), listed above; 

(2) If, after being notified that its EPA 

Protocol gas cylinders are being audited 

by EPA, the EPA Protocol gas 

production site fails to cancel its invoice 

or to credit the purchaser’s account for 

the cylinders; or 

(3) Any participating EPA Protocol 

gas production site whose cylinders 

were sent to NIST by EPA for analysis 

but are not in the electronic audit report 

submitted by NIST to EPA. 

EPA would relist an EPA Protocol gas 

production site as follows: 

(1) An EPA Protocol gas production 

site may be relisted immediately, after 

its failure is remedied, if the only failure 

is not providing all of the information 

required by § 75.21(g)(1); 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 33395 

1Section 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. 

(2) If EPA fails to receive from the 

participating EPA Protocol gas 

production site a written invoice 

cancellation or a hardcopy credit receipt 

for the cylinders within two weeks of 

notifying the production site that its 

cylinders are being audited by EPA, the 

cylinders would be returned to the 

production site and that production site 

would not be eligible for relisting until 

December 31 of the current year and 

until it submits to EPA the information 

required by § 75.21(g)(1), in accordance 

with the procedures in §§ 75.21(g)(2) 

and 75.21(g)(3); and 

(3) Any participating EPA Protocol 

gas production site whose cylinders 

were sent to NIST by EPA for analysis, 

but are not in the electronic audit report 

submitted by NIST to EPA, would not 

be eligible for relisting until December 

31 of the next year and until it submits 

to EPA the information required by 

§ 75.21(g)(1), in accordance with the 

procedures in §§ 75.21(g)(2) and 

75.21(g)(3). The eligible relisting date of 

December 31 of the next year is later 

than the eligible relisting date in (2), 

above, because EPA will not know 

whether a particular EPA Protocol gas 

production site is missing from the 

NIST audit report until the last half of 

the calendar year. Thus, a production 

site would potentially be removed from 

the list of participants for only a few 

months if the eligible relisting date were 

December 31 of the current year, which 

may not be sufficient to prevent gaming 

of the program. 

EPA believes that removing EPA 

Protocol gas production sites from the 

participants list for cause will provide 

sufficient incentive for good faith 

participation. However, EPA 

specifically requests comment on 

whether there are better mechanisms to 

ensure good faith participation once a 

company elects to participate in the 

PGVP. 

EPA notes that some EPA Protocol gas 

production sites produce EPA Protocol 

gas cylinders claiming NIST traceability 

for both NO and NOX concentrations in 

the same cylinder. If, as provided in the 

proposed rule, such cylinders were 

analyzed by NIST for the PGVP, they 

would have to be analyzed and the 

results reported for both the NO and 

NOX components, where total NOX is 

determined by NO plus NO2. The 

Agency believes that this requirement 

would better assure NIST traceability, 

regardless of whether NO or NOX is 

used when performing QA/QC tests. 

The Agency believes that there are 

approximately 14 specialty gas 

companies in the U.S. Some companies 

have multiple production sites, 

resulting in approximately 30 potential 

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 § 75.21(g), a Part 75 

affected source, or an emissions testing 

group or testing company has in its 

possession EPA Protocol gases from an 

EPA Protocol gas production site that is 

not participating in the PGVP, use of 

those cylinder gases would also be 

permitted for Part 75 applications until 

the earlier of the cylinder’s expiration 

date or until the cylinder gas pressure 

reaches 150 psig. EPA believes that 

these proposed rule provisions help 

clarify the liability of Part 75 affected 

sources in such cases. 

After analysis, each EPA Protocol gas 

cylinder would be returned to the EPA 

Protocol gas production site that 

provided it. The EPA Protocol gas 

cylinders being returned to the 

production site would be almost full 

and have an accompanying NIST 

analyzed concentration with an 

uncertainty of plus or minus 1.0 percent 

(inclusive) or better, which more than 

meets the Part 75 EPA Protocol gas plus 

or minus 2.0 percent of cylinder tag 

value requirement. 

In order to help contain the cost of 

NIST’s cylinder analyses, NIST has 

agreed to implement the following cost 

containment measures: 

(1) The concentrations of the gaseous 

components of interest in each batch of 

cylinders will be within predefined 

concentration ranges. This will allow 

NIST to setup instrumentation and form 

calibration curves more efficiently. 

(2) The arrival of each batch of 

cylinders will be coordinated with the 

work schedules of key NIST personnel. 

This will allow NIST to more efficiently 

manage its resources. 

(3) NIST has modeled the cross 

interactions of the analytical species on 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33396 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

2Like 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. 

its instrumentation. Future work can 

make use of that modeling, so that NIST 

needs only to confirm that the 

correction factors are still good before 

using them. 

(4) Since NIST’s uncertainty 2

requirements for intermediate gas 

standards are quite stringent (i.e., less 

than 0.5% uncertainty, and 1% 

expanded), NIST can use intermediate 

standards for all of this work. This 

keeps the cost down, because expensive 

primary standards do not have to be 

used. In addition, NIST has invested in 

tri-mix working standards that will 

allow them to validate their methods 

much more quickly. 

(5) For the future, NIST is considering 

using a Fourier Transform Infrared 

Spectroscopy (FTIR) method, which 

might further reduce costs by 

consolidating all of the analytical work 

in a single automated instrument. 

NIST has agreed to analyze audit 

cylinders to 0.5% uncertainty (1% 

expanded uncertainty). The reason for 

this uncertainty goal is to allow 

reasonable certainty when judging an 

audited cylinder with a 2.0% 

uncertainty requirement under Part 75. 

No reasonable cost savings will be 

achieved by increasing the uncertainty 

to 1% (2% expanded). 

According to NIST, high 

concentration cylinders will always cost 

less to analyze. The lowest 

concentration cylinders will cost NIST 

approximately 25% more to analyze. 

Based on 2009 cost data from NIST 

and recent cylinder shipping costs, EPA 

estimates that the average cost for NIST 

to analyze one EPA Protocol gas 

cylinder, produce a report and return 

ship a cylinder is approximately $1,800. 

This cost assumes implementation of 

cost containment measures #1 through 

#3 described above. The cost may 

decrease further as a result of 

implementing measures #4 and #5. 

EPA proposes to add the following 

simple recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements under §§ 75.59 and 75.64 

to enable the Agency to verify that Part 

75 affected sources are using EPA 

Protocol gases from EPA Protocol gas 

production sites that are participating in 

the PGVP, and to inform the gas 

cylinder selection for the PGVP audits: 

(i) Gas level code; 

(ii) A code for the type of EPA 

Protocol gas used for each gas monitor 

that uses EPA Protocol gas for daily 

calibrations; 

(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. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 75.64 (described in items (i) through 

(vi) listed above) would be submitted 

prior to or concurrent with the submittal 

of the relevant quarterly electronic data 

report. However, if the final rule is 

delayed, EPA reserves the right to 

amend the reporting deadline. The 

Agency believes that this will provide 

both EPA and the regulated community 

adequate time to reprogram 

recordkeeping/reporting software. 

The Agency is also proposing to 

amend Section 6.5.10 of Appendix A to 

Part 75 to require that the EPA Protocol 

gases used when performing Methods 

3A, 6C, and/or 7E must be from EPA 

Protocol gas production sites 

participating in the PGVP. The Agency 

anticipates that this will help improve 

the data quality when these test 

methods are used at Part 75 affected 

sources. 

B. Amendments to the Minimum 

Competency Requirements for Air 

Emission Testing 

EPA proposes to add minimum 

competency requirements for air 

emission testing under § 75.21(f). This 

proposed section describes where the 

minimum competency requirements 

apply and where they do not. 

EPA proposes to add simple 

recordkeeping requirements under 

§ 75.59 and reporting requirements 

under §§ 75.63 and 75.64 to enable the 

Agency to verify that Qualified 

Individuals and Air Emission Testing 

Bodies (AETBs) meet the requirements 

of this rule should we take final action. 

On and after January 1, 2011, the new 

AETB-related data elements in § 75.64 

would be submitted prior to or 

concurrent with the submittal of the 

relevant quarterly electronic data report 

required under § 75.64. However, if the 

final rule is delayed, EPA reserves the 

right to amend the reporting deadline. 

The Agency believes that this will 

provide both EPA and the regulated 

community adequate time to reprogram 

recordkeeping/reporting software. 

Proposed revisions to Sections 

6.1.2(a), (b), and (c) of Appendix A to 

Part 75 would provide that all relative 

accuracy test audits (RATAs) of Part 75 

CEMS and stack tests conducted under 

§ 75.19 and Appendix E to Part 75 are 

to be conducted by an AETB that has 

provided to the owner or operator a 

certification that as of the time of testing 

the AETB is operating in conformance 

with ASTM D7036–04. That 

certification is a certificate of 

accreditation or interim accreditation 

for the relevant test method issued by a 

recognized national accreditation body 

or a letter of certification for the relevant 

test methods signed by a member of the 

senior management staff of the AETB. 

The owner or operator would also 

record and report: (a) The name, 

telephone number and e-mail address of 

the Air Emission Testing Body; (b) the 

name of the on-site Qualified 

Individual; (c) For the reference 

method(s) that were performed, the date 

that the on-site Qualified Individual 

took and passed the relevant 

qualification exam(s), required by 

ASTM D 7036–04; and (d) the name and 

e-mail address of the qualification exam 

provider (see Section 6.1.2(b)). All of 

this information would have to be 

recorded and kept on site for at least 3 

years and would be reported to EPA, 

except for the certificate of accreditation 

or interim accreditation and the letter of 

certification. The certificate of 

accreditation or interim accreditation 

and the letter of certification would not 

be reported to EPA but would be 

retained on-site for at least 3 years. 

The AETB must reasonably have all of 

this information available to be in 

compliance with ASTM D 7036–04, 

§§ 5.4.11 and 8.3.7. Section 5.4.11 states 

that the AETB shall ‘‘be able to provide 

documentation or otherwise 

demonstrate, on request from the 

persons or organizations evaluating its 

competence, that it complies with * * * 

this practice.’’ Section 8.3.7 states that 

‘‘The qualification credentials of each 

qualified individual shall be available 

for inspection at the test site.’’ 

Qualification credentials are defined in 

the ASTM standard as ‘‘evidence that 

the qualified individual meets the 

requirements of 8.3.2 * * * .’’ Section 

8.3.2 includes criteria on experience, 

qualification exams, and a statement 

saying that all test projects conducted 

under the QI’s supervision ‘‘will 

conform to the AETB’s quality manual 

and to this practice in all respects.’’ 

EPA is proposing to remove the 

reference to sorbent trap testing from 

Section 6.1.2(a) of Appendix A, in view 

of the vacatur of the Clean Air Mercury 

Regulation (CAMR) by the D.C. Court of 

Appeals. Proposed Section 6.1.2(d) of 

Appendix A recommends that the 

owner or operator of a Part 75 affected 

source request the following 

information from an AETB: 

(1) The AETB’s quality manual; 

(2) The results of any external or 

internal audits performed by the AETB 

in the prior 12 months; 

(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. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33398 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Proposed Section 6.1.2(e) also 

provides that if during the test period, 

it is discovered that a Qualified 

Individual is not present on site either 

conducting or overseeing the methods 

employed for the test project, that test 

must be invalidated and repeated with 

a Qualified Individual present. This 

provision is intended to encourage the 

owner or operator and those observing 

the test to make it standard operating 

practice to verify that a QI is present 

while the testing is still in progress, 

thereby preventing potentially large 

amounts of data from being invalidated 

(e.g., if six months after the completion 

of a RATA, EPA were to discover that 

a QI was not on site during the test 

period). The Agency notes that an 

owner or operator could act as an AETB 

for its own source or for other sources, 

provided that the requirements of 

Section 6.1.2 are met. 

Of course, having a QI on site either 

conducting or overseeing the methods 

employed in the test project does not 

guarantee proper performance of the 

test. Third party (e.g., state agency) 

oversight is recommended to help 

ensure that testing is properly 

conducted. (The Agency notes that even 

though third party oversight is highly 

recommended, it is not required in 

today’s proposed rule.) 

Proposed Section 6.1.2(f) of Appendix 

A, states that (in the absence of other 

information such as evidence of 

collusion during testing), test data that 

otherwise meet the requirements of Part 

75 will be considered valid, provided 

that the AETB provides to the owner or 

operator a certificate of accreditation (or 

interim accreditation) or letter of 

certification described in Sections 

6.1.2(b)(1) and (2), and the Qualified 

Individual requirements in Section 

6.1.2(e) are met. 

The Agency notes that ASTM D7036– 

04 requires that the QI re-take and pass 

a qualification exam at least once every 

five years (see § 8.3.3 of the ASTM 

standard). Therefore, EPA, State and 

local air agencies will be checking that 

QI exam certificates are current. The 

Agency recommends, but is not 

requiring, that owners or operators of 

Part 75 affected sources also check that 

the exam certificates are current. 

EPA believes that requiring submittal 

of the name and e-mail address of the 

qualification exam provider is important 

for two reasons: (1) It will be a valuable 

deterrent to an AETB providing false 

qualification exam dates or 

certifications because the Agency may 

from time to time check with the exam 

provider; and (2) it allows the Agency 

to more easily verify the QI’s 

credentials. 

EPA understands that it may be unfair 

to hold an owner or operator of an 

affected source responsible for certain 

actions (or inactions) related to an 

external AETB’s compliance with 

ASTM D7036–04. Therefore, proposed 

Section 6.1.2(f) also provides that ‘‘The 

certification described in paragraph (b) 

of this section, and compliance with 

paragraph (e), shall be sufficient proof of 

validity of test data that otherwise meet 

the requirements of this part.’’ Proposed 

paragraph (g) provides that ‘‘[i]f the 

Administrator finds that an AETB has 

not provided accurate or complete 

information required by this section to 

an affected source or requested by an 

affected source under this section, the 

Administrator may post the name of the 

offending AETB on Agency Web sites, 

and provide the AETB a description of 

the failures to be remedied.’’ EPA 

believes that this would be a deterrent 

to non-compliance with ASTM D7036– 

04. The Agency requests comments on 

whether posting an offending AETB’s 

name on Agency Web sites is an 

appropriate response in these situations. 

Further, EPA would have the express 

authority under proposed Section 

6.1.2(h) to require an AETB to provide 

certain information relating to 

evaluation of the effectiveness of these 

provisions and the accuracy of 

information provided thereunder. If the 

Administrator learns that an AETB has 

not provided accurate or complete 

information or has not provided 

information to an owner or operator 

upon request as recommended in this 

rule, EPA has the authority under CAA 

Section 114 to itself require the AETB 

to provide evidence to the Agency that 

the AETB has in fact provided such 

information. EPA’s authority under 

§ 114 is broad, and extends to any 

person ‘‘who the Administrator believes 

may have information necessary for the 

purposes’’ of carrying out the CAA, even 

if that person is not otherwise subject to 

the CAA. The broad requirement to 

provide ‘‘such information as the 

Administrator may reasonably require’’, 

can be one-time or on a continuous 

basis. 

By specifically authorizing EPA to 

collect information from persons subject 

to any requirement of the CAA, as well 

as any person whom the Administrator 

believes may have necessary 

information, Congress clearly intended 

that EPA could gather information from 

persons not otherwise subject to CAA 

requirements. In an effort to resolve 

problems which affected sources have 

had with air emissions testing bodies, 

EPA is proposing these amendments to 

Parts 72 and 75, and information to be 

available to owners or operators from 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 75.64 would be submitted to EPA prior 

to or concurrent with the submittal of 

the relevant quarterly electronic data 

report. However, if the final rule is 

delayed, EPA reserves the right to 

amend the reporting deadline. The 

Agency believes that this will provide 

both EPA and the regulated community 

adequate time to reprogram 

recordkeeping/reporting software. 

C. Other Amendments 

1. Compliance Dates 

EPA is proposing to amend 

paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2) of § 75.4 to 

remove the 90 unit operating days 

provision pertaining to the monitoring 

system certification deadline for new 

Acid Rain Program (ARP) units and 

newly-affected units that lose their ARPexempt status under 40 CFR 72.6. A 

new ARP unit would have 180 calendar 

days after the date the unit commences 

commercial operation to complete 

certification tests of all monitoring 

systems, and would, according to 

§ 72.9(c)(3)(iv), be required to 

commence holding SO2 allowances 

when the 180 day window expires. A 

newly-affected ARP unit would also 

have 180 days to complete monitor 

certification testing and begin holding 

allowances, except that in this case, the 

reference point would be the date on 

which the unit becomes subject to the 

ARP, rather than the date on which the 

unit commenced commercial operation. 

Since § 75.61(a)(2) requires the owner or 

operator to notify EPA of the date on 

which a new unit commences 

commercial operation or the date on 

which a previously ARP-exempt unit 

loses its exempt status, the Agency 

believes the proposed amendments to 

§§ 75.4(b) and (c) will clarify and 

simplify the determination of when new 

and newly-affected ARP units must 

complete certification testing and 

commence holding SO2 allowances. 

EPA is also proposing to amend 

§ 75.4(e), chiefly to clarify the 

applicability of this section. Section 

75.4(e) applies to the construction of a 

new stack or the installation of add-on 

SO2 or NOX emission controls (or both) 

at an existing Acid Rain Program (ARP) 

unit after the compliance date specified 

in § 75.4(a). For these events, the owner 

or operator is given 90 unit operating 

days or 180 calendar days (whichever 

occurs first) after gases first exit to the 

atmosphere through the new stack, flue, 

or emission control device to complete 

all necessary monitoring system 

certification testing. 

Under 40 CFR 72.2, a ‘‘new’’ ARP unit 

is defined as one that commences 

commercial operation on or after 

November 15, 1990. Since § 75.4(e) 

applies only to ‘‘existing’’ units, it only 

covers Phase I and Phase II ARP units 

that commenced commercial operation 

prior to November 15, 1990. 

Therefore, to ensure that the owner or 

operator of a new ARP unit that 

commences commercial operation after 

November 15, 1990 is given the same 90 

operating day/180 calendar day flexible 

window of time to perform the 

necessary monitoring system testing 

when a new stack is constructed or addon SO2 or NOX emission controls are 

installed, EPA proposes to amend 

§ 75.4(e), as follows: 

• First, the reference to the 

compliance date in § 75.4(a), which 

applies only to existing units, would be 

expanded to include the compliance 

date in § 75.4(b), which applies to new 

units. 

• Second, the reference to 

‘‘certification testing’’ of the monitoring 

systems would be expanded to include 

the terms ‘‘recertification’’ and 

‘‘diagnostic testing,’’ because new stack 

construction and/or addition of 

emission controls does not necessarily 

require a full battery of certification 

tests to be performed. 

• Third, the exact starting time of the 

90 operating day/180 calendar day 

window would be clarified. For 

construction of a new stack, no change 

is proposed—the clock will start when 

gases first exit to the atmosphere 

through the new stack. However, for 

SO2 or NOX control device addition, the 

clock would start when reagent is first 

injected into the gas stream. In cases 

where there is both new stack 

construction and control device 

addition, the start of the clock would be 

governed by the new stack construction. 

• Finally, the allowable data 

reporting options during the flexible 90 

operating day/180 calendar day window 

of time would be clarified. 

2. Incorporation by Reference 

The Agency is proposing to amend 

§ 75.6 by including reference to Section 

3, Small Volume Provers, First Edition, 

of the American Petroleum Institute 

(API) Manual of Petroleum 

Measurement Standards, Chapter 4— 

Proving Systems. Section 3 was 

inadvertently left out of the January 24, 

2008 final rule. 

3. Miscellaneous Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

EPA is proposing to amend certain 

recordkeeping and reporting provisions 

in §§ 75.53(g)(1)(i)(A), (g)(1)(i)(C), 

(g)(1)(i)(E), (g)(1)(i)(F), (g)(1)(v)(F), 

(g)(1)(v)(G), (g)(1)(vi)(J), (h)(2)(i), and 

(h)(5), §§ 75.58(d)(4)(iii)(A)–(H), 

§§ 75.59(a)(1)(iii), (a)(5)(ii)(L), 

(a)(5)(iii)(H), (a)(12)(iv)(G), (d)(3)(xii) 

and (xiii), § 75.62(d), and § 75.63(d) by 

adding various data elements that were 

inadvertently left out of the August 22, 

2006 proposed rule and the January 24, 

2008 final rule. These data elements 

have already been included in the data 

acquisition and handling systems of Part 

75 affected units, and are needed to 

make EPA’s new reporting software data 

requirements consistent with the 

regulatory requirements. Because there 

was zero tolerance for reporting errors 

during the transition to the EPA’s reengineered reporting software system 

(ECMPS), the Agency is confident that 

all Part 75 affected sources have already 

met the reporting deadlines for these 

data elements. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33400 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

3EPA 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. 

4. Reference Methods 

In § 75.22(a)(5)(iv), the Agency is 

proposing to disallow multiple Method 

7E runs to be performed before 

conducting the post-run bias or system 

calibration error check. EPA is 

concerned that if the use of this option, 

which is described in Section 8.5 of 

Method 7E, were allowed, less accurate 

gas concentration measurements are 

likely to result; and correction of the 

run-level data for calibration bias would 

become unnecessarily complex and 

prone to error.3

5. Alternative Monitoring Systems 

EPA is proposing to remove the 

requirement for an owner or operator to 

demonstrate that emissions for a classapproved alternative monitoring system 

(AMS) are de minimis from § 75.47(b). 

EPA believes that the de minimis 

emissions concept is not appropriate for 

Subpart E petitions because in order to 

be approved, an AMS must be shown to 

be equivalent to a continuous emission 

monitoring system (CEMS). In the Acid 

Rain Program and in other Part 75 

emissions trading programs, the de 

minimis emissions concept has been 

used only to justify allowing the use of 

less rigorous monitoring methods for 

low-emitting units (such as the 

Appendix E methodology for gas-fired 

and oil-fired peaking units and the low 

mass emissions (LME) methodology in 

§ 75.19) rather than for justifying the use 

of CEMS or AMS shown to be 

equivalent to CEMS. There are also 

potential problems defining de minimis 

emissions for a class of units, and 

tracking the available increment. The 

Agency notes that today’s proposed 

revision to § 75.47(b) does not imply 

that it will be easier to get a classapproved AMS petition granted under 

Subpart E. 

The Agency is also proposing to 

remove the self-imposed requirement 

for EPA to publish a Federal Register 

notice for a 30-day public comment 

period prior to granting a classapproved AMS in § 75.47(c). This 

Federal Register notice is unnecessary 

in view of EPA’s authority under 

Subpart E to approve alternative 

monitoring systems, and the rigorous 

requirements in §§ 75.40 through 75.48 

that an AMS must meet in order to be 

certified. 

6. Cover Letters 

EPA is proposing to amend §§ 75.62 

and 75.63, regarding the need for cover 

letter text to accompany official 

monitoring plan submittals, certification 

applications, and recertification 

applications. Sections 72.21 and 72.22 

of the Acid Rain Program core rules 

require each official Program submittal 

to come from the Designated 

Representative (DR) or the Alternate 

Designated Representative (ADR), and to 

include a certification statement 

attesting that the information in the 

submittal is, to the best of his or her 

knowledge, true and accurate. 

In past years, EPA had required a hard 

copy form (i.e., EPA form 7610–14) to be 

included with all initial monitoring 

plan submittals, and with all 

certification and recertification 

applications. Form 7610–14 included a 

certification statement and a signature 

block for the DR or ADR. However, the 

form eventually became outdated, and 

in the January 24, 2008 rulemaking, EPA 

removed the requirement to include it 

in future monitoring plan, certification 

application, and recertification 

application submittals. Although 

discontinuing the use of Form 7610–14 

was appropriate, it resulted in a loss of 

the official status of these submittals. 

Today’s proposed rule would add a 

new paragraph, (d), to both § 75.62 and 

§ 75.63. Section 75.62(d) would require 

the DR or ADR to enclose a hard copy 

cover letter with each hard copy 

monitoring plan submittal. The cover 

letter would be submitted to the EPA 

Regional Office and to the State or local 

air agency. Consistent with § 72.21(b), 

the cover letter would include the DR’s 

(or ADR’s) signature and a certification 

statement. Section 75.63(d) would 

similarly require a hard copy cover 

letter and a signed certification 

statement from the DR or ADR to 

accompany the hard copy portion of 

each certification or recertification 

application. 

In contrast, for electronic monitoring 

plan submittals and the electronic 

portions of certification and 

recertification applications, there is no 

need for cover letter text. For these 

official Program submittals, the 

requirements of §§ 72.21 and 72.22 are 

met by means of the DR’s (or ADR’s) 

electronic signature and electronic 

certification statements. However, the 

DR or ADR may wish to provide 

important explanatory text and 

comments along with an official 

electronic submittal. In view of this, 

EPA proposes to include in §§ 75.62(d) 

and 75.63(d) provisions allowing such 

text and comments to accompany both 

electronic monitoring plan submittals 

and the electronic portions of 

certification and recertification 

applications, provided that the 

information is communicated in an 

electronic format compatible with the 

rest of the data required under §§ 75.62 

and 75.63. This is consistent with 

§ 75.64(g), which allows the DR or ADR 

to provide EPA with similar textual 

information in electronic format, so long 

as it is compatible with the rest of the 

data in the quarterly emissions reports. 

7. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Formats 

EPA proposes to amend Part 75, 

Appendix A, Section 4 to update 

recordkeeping and reporting formats. 

8. Calibration Gas Tag Values 

EPA proposes to amend Part 75, 

Appendix A, Sections 5.1.4(b) and 5.1.5 

to clarify the meaning of the plus or 

minus 2.0 percent performance 

specification for EPA Protocol gases and 

research gas mixtures. 

Section 5.1.4(b) currently requires 

calculation of a 95 percent confidence 

interval which may provide justification 

for a specialty gas company to claim 

that it is permissible for an EPA 

Protocol gas cylinder tag value to be 

more than 2.0 percent different than the 

actual cylinder gas concentration. The 

Agency generally does not assign an 

uncertainty to a performance 

specification, e.g., cylinder 

concentration must be within 2.0% of 

cylinder tag value, because performance 

specifications are used to determine 

compliance. 

Proposed Section 5.1.4(b) would state 

that ‘‘EPA Protocol gas concentrations 

must be certified by a specialty gas 

company to have an analytical 

uncertainty to be not more than plus or 

minus 2.0 percent (inclusive).’’ 

Section 5.1.5 currently states that 

research gas mixtures (RGM) must be 

vendor certified to be within 2.0 percent 

of the cylinder tag value. This statement 

may be confusing because the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology 

(rather than a specialty gas vendor) 

actually certifies an RGM concentration. 

Proposed Section 5.1.5 would state: 

‘‘Concentrations of research gas 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 33401 

mixtures, as defined in § 72.2 of this 

chapter, must be certified by the 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology to be within plus or minus 

2.0 percent (inclusive) of the 

concentration specified on the cylinder 

label (i.e., the tag value) in order to be 

used as calibration gas under this part.’’ 

The Agency requests comments on 

these proposed changes to Sections 

5.1.4(b) and 5.1.5, particularly regarding 

the appropriateness of the 2.0 percent 

specification for very low gas 

concentrations. Would an alternative 

specification (e.g., in terms of absolute 

difference) be more appropriate for very 

low concentration gases? 

9. Removal of Mercury Monitoring 

Provisions 

EPA is proposing to remove the 

mercury (Hg) monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting provisions 

from Parts 72 and 75. These provisions 

were originally published in May 2005, 

in support of the Clean Air Mercury 

Rule (CAMR) (see 70 FR 28606, May 18, 

2005), and were subsequently amended 

on September 7, 2007 and January 24, 

2008 (see 72 FR 51494, September 7, 

2007 and 73 FR 4312, January 24, 2008). 

CAMR provided a blueprint for a 

national Hg emissions reduction 

program, using a ‘‘cap and trade’’ 

approach. However, the rule was 

challenged, and on February 8, 2008, 

the District of Columbia Court of 

Appeals in New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 

574 (D.C. Cir. 2008) vacated the rule. 

The sole purpose of the Part 75 Hg 

monitoring provisions was to facilitate 

the implementation of CAMR. EPA 

appealed the Court’s ruling on CAMR, 

but the petition for a rehearing was 

denied. 

In view of vacatur of CAMR, today’s 

proposed amendments would not only 

remove the more visible Hg monitoring 

sections of the rule, such as Subpart I 

(Hg mass emissions monitoring 

options), § 75.15 (operation of sorbent 

trap monitoring systems), §§ 75.38 and 

75.39 (Hg missing data provisions), 

§§ 75.57(i) and (j) (Hg recordkeeping 

provisions), Section 9 of Appendix F 

(Hg mass emissions calculations), and 

Appendix K (QA procedures for sorbent 

trap systems), but would also remove a 

myriad of less obvious references to Hg 

monitoring scattered throughout the 

rule text, Tables, and Figures. 

The rule texts affected by the 

proposed amendments are as follows: 

§ 72.2, § 75.2(d), § 75.4(d), § 75.6, 

§ 75.10(d), §§ 75.20(a) through (d), 

§ 75.21(a), §§ 75.22(a) and (b), 

§ 75.24(d), §§ 75.31(a) and (b), 

§ 75.32(a), Table 1 in § 75.33, §§ 75.34(a) 

and (d), § 75.38, § 75.39, § 75.53(g), 

§§ 75.57(i) and (j), Table 4a in § 75.57, 

§ 75.58(b), §§ 75.59(a), (c) and (e), 

§ 75.60(b), §§ 75.61(a) and (b), §§ 75.80 

through 75.84, Appendix A, Sections 

1.1, 2.1.7, 2.1.7.1 through 2.1.7.4, 2.2.3, 

3.1(c), 3.2(3), 3.3.8, 3.4.3, 4 introductory 

text, 5.1.9, 6.2 introductory text, (g) and 

(h), 6.3.1 introductory text, 6.4 

introductory text, 6.5 introductory text, 

(c), (e), and (g), 6.5.1, 6.5.6(c), 6.5.10, 7.3 

introductory text, 7.6 introductory text, 

7.6.1, 7.6.5(b) and (f), Appendix B, 

Sections 1.1.4, 1.5, 1.5.1 through 1.5.6, 

2.1.4(a), 2.2.1, 2.3.1.1(a), 2.3.1.3(a), 

2.3.2(d) and (i), 2.3.4, 2.6, Figures 1 and 

2, Appendix F, section 9, and Appendix 

K. 

10. Miscellaneous Corrections and 

Additions 

EPA also proposes to make several 

minor corrections and additions to Part 

75, most of which are in the rule 

sections cited immediately above. Many 

of the proposed revisions are simply 

grammatical in nature, for added clarity. 

The more substantive proposed 

revisions are as follows. First, in 

§§ 75.21 and 75.22 and Section 6.5.10 of 

Appendix A, corrections would be made 

to the citations of the Appendices to 

Part 60 in which the EPA reference 

methods are found. Second, Equation 

A–7 in Appendix A would be corrected. 

Third, references to SO2-diluent 

monitoring systems, which are no 

longer used for Part 75 reporting, would 

be removed from § 75.59, Section 

2.3.1.1(a) of Appendix B, and from 

Figure 2 of Appendix B. Fourth, the 

reference to moisture sensors, which are 

not required to perform daily calibration 

error tests, would be removed from 

Section 2.1.4(a) of Appendix B. Fifth, a 

reference to the NOX emission tests of 

low mass emissions units, which had 

been inadvertently omitted, would be 

added to § 75.22. Sixth, in Table 4a in 

§ 75.57, the reference to the maximum 

potential flow rate (MPF) would be 

removed from the description of Method 

of Determination Code (MODC) ‘‘23’’. 

Code 23 pertains to data reporting for an 

unmonitored bypass stack. Section 

75.16(c)(3) states that during bypass 

hours, the standard missing data 

procedures are to be used for stack gas 

flow rate, rather than reporting the MPF. 

Finally, a new MODC, ‘‘53’’, would be 

added to Table 4a. This code would be 

used for certain alternative emissions 

data approved by petition. MODC ‘‘53’’ 

differs from existing code ‘‘54’’, in that 

the hours in which code ‘‘53’’ is reported 

would be considered ‘‘available’’ hours 

that do not affect the percent monitor 

data availability (PMA). An example of 

a case where code ‘‘53’’ might be used 

is a situation where a developing 

problem with a monitor (e.g., a dilution 

probe leak) is undetectable by means of 

daily or quarterly QA tests, but it is later 

discovered, at the time of the annual 

RATA. Ordinarily, this could result in 

an extended period of missing data 

substitution, including the use of 

maximum potential values, and a sharp 

reduction in the PMA. However, if the 

probe leak could be reasonably 

quantified, EPA would consider a 

petition under § 75.66 to make an 

upward adjustment to the data recorded 

by the monitor during the leak period 

and to report the adjusted data using 

MODC ‘‘53’’ instead of applying the 

standard Part 75 missing data routines. 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33402 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the quality of results when these test 

methods are used. 

EPA has added simple recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements to enable 

the Agency to verify that Qualified 

Individuals and Air Emission Testing 

Bodies meet the requirements of this 

rule. EPA maintains that the main costs 

for air emission testing bodies to comply 

with the minimum competency 

requirements in ASTM D7036–04 are 

associated with taking qualified 

individual (QI) competency exams, and 

the development and revision of quality 

assurance manuals. The costs will be 

passed through to the customers (Part 75 

affected sources, primarily large electric 

utility and industrial companies), and 

the Agency notes that these costs will be 

offset by the savings generated by fewer 

failed or incorrectly performed relative 

accuracy test audits (RATAs), and fewer 

repeat tests required. 

EPA is also requiring certain 

recordkeeping and reporting provisions 

for various data elements that were 

inadvertently left out of the August 22, 

2006 proposed rule and the January 24, 

2008 final rule. These data elements 

have already been incorporated in the 

data acquisition and handling systems 

of Part 75 affected units, and are 

required to make EPA’s new reporting 

software data requirements consistent 

with the regulatory requirements. 

All of the above data collections are 

mandatory under 40 CFR part 75. None 

of the data are considered confidential 

business information under 40 CFR part 

2, subpart B. 

This proposed rule does not 

significantly change the existing 

requirements in 40 CFR Parts 72, and 75 

and thus does not significantly change 

the existing information collection 

burden. The total annual respondent 

burden is estimated to be 2,254 hours, 

with total annual labor and O&M costs 

estimated to be $1,081,989. This 

estimate includes the burden associated 

with the increase in fees from AETBs 

and PGVP vendors resulting from their 

compliance with the new requirements 

in the rule as well as the small labor 

burden for sources to review the new 

requirements and comply with the 

modified recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements (See Exhibits 1 and 2). 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

The respondent burden for this 

collection of information is estimated to 

be a small fraction of both the 124,976 

labor hours, and the $8,581,420 total 

cost that were calculated for the existing 

supporting statement (ICR 2203.02) for 

revisions to 40 CFR Parts 72 & 75. 

Most of these costs are expected to be 

borne by the private sector and will be 

passed through to the customers (Part 75 

affected sources, primarily large electric 

utility and industrial companies, or the 

rate payers). The Agency notes that 

much of the overall cost will be offset 

by the savings generated by fewer failed 

or incorrectly performed daily 

calibration error tests, quarterly linearity 

checks, and relative accuracy test audits 

(RATAs), and fewer repeat tests 

required. 

Exhibits 1 and 2 summarize the 

respondent burden and cost estimates 

performed for the ICR (2203.03) 

supporting statement for revisions to 40 

CFR Parts 72 & 75. EPA estimates that: 

(a) 1,249 ARP sources and 253 

additional CAIR sources will need to 

review the revised requirements and 

comply with the modified reporting 

requirements; and (b) 3,736 ARP sources 

and 777 additional CAIR sources will 

need to perform quality assurance 

testing and maintenance tasks. Low 

mass emissions units will not have to 

modify their DAHS, and sources with 

only new units already have their initial 

startup burdens and costs accounted for 

in the underlying program ICRs. Exhibit 

1 shows the total burden and total cost 

based on this respondent universe. 

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

PARTS 72 & 75 

Information collection activity Mean hourly 

rate 

Hours per 

activity/ 

year 

Number of 

respondents 

(facilities) 

Respondent 

hours/year 

Total labor 

cost/year 

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

ARP Respondents Compliance with Modified Reporting 

Requirements ................................................................... 80.71 0.5 1,249 624.5 50,444 

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

CAIR Respondents Compliance with Modified Reporting 

Requirements ................................................................... 80.71 0.5 253 126.5 10,210 

Total .............................................................................. ........................ ........................ 1,502 2,254 181,881 

EXHIBIT 2—INCREASED RESPONDENT BURDEN/COST (QA AND MAINTENANCE) ESTIMATES RELATED TO REVISIONS OF 40 

CFR PARTS 72 & 75 

Information collection activity 

Previously 

established 

cont./O&M 

cost 

Increased 

cont./O&M 

cost per 

respondent 

Number of 

respondents 

(units) 

Increased total 

cost/year 

ARP Perform QA Testing and Maintenance 

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

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

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

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

CAIR Perform QA Testing and Maintenance 

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

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

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

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

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 33403 

EXHIBIT 2—INCREASED RESPONDENT BURDEN/COST (QA AND MAINTENANCE) ESTIMATES RELATED TO REVISIONS OF 40 

CFR PARTS 72 & 75—Continued 

Information collection activity 

Previously 

established 

cont./O&M 

cost 

Increased 

cont./O&M 

cost per 

respondent 

Number of 

respondents 

(units) 

Increased total 

cost/year 

• Non ARP Sources in O3 Only States 

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

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

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

PGVP Increased Costs 

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

Total .......................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 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-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

EPA conducted a screening analysis 

of today’s rule on small entities in the 

following manner. The SBA defines 

small utilities as any entity and 

associated affiliates whose total electric 

output for the preceding fiscal year did 

not exceed 4 million megawatt hours. 

The SBA 4 million megawatt hour 

threshold was applied to the Energy 

Information Administration (EIA) 

Annual Form EIA–923, ‘‘Power Plant 

Operations Report’’ 2008 net generation 

megawatt hour data and results in an 

estimated 1169 facilities. This data is 

then paired with facility owner and 

associated affiliates data (owners with 

net generation over 4 million were 

disregarded) resulting in a total of 620 

small entities with a 2008 average net 

generation of 650,169 megawatt hours. 

Multiplying net generation by the 2009 

EIA average retail price of electricity 

(9.72 cents per kilowatt hour), the 

average revenue stream per small entity 

was determined to be $63,196,427 

dollars. In contrast the average 

respondent costs burden for this rule 

was determined to be $720.37 per year, 

which is considerably less than one 

percent of the estimated average 

revenue stream per entity. All of the 620 

small entities except for one had 

respondent costs that were less than one 

percent of the estimated revenue stream. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33404 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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: 

§ 72.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Air Emission Testing Body (AETB) 

means a company or other entity that 

provides to the owner or operator the 

certification required by section 6.1.2(b) 

of appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

Continuous emission monitoring 

system or CEMS means the equipment 

required by part 75 of this chapter used 

to sample, analyze, measure, and 

provide, by means of readings recorded 

at least once every 15 minutes (using an 

automated data acquisition and 

handling system (DAHS)), a permanent 

record of SO2, NOX, or CO2 emissions or 

stack gas volumetric flow rate. The 

following are the principal types of 

continuous emission monitoring 

systems required under part 75 of this 

chapter. Sections 75.10 through 75.18, 

and § 75.71(a) of this chapter indicate 

which type(s) of CEMS is required for 

specific applications: 

* * * * * 

EPA Protocol Gas means a calibration 

gas mixture prepared and analyzed 

according to section 2 of the ‘‘EPA 

Traceability Protocol for Assay and 

Certification of Gaseous Calibration 

Standards,’’ September 1997, EPA–600/ 

R–97/121 or such revised procedure as 

approved by the Administrator. 

EPA Protocol Gas Production Site 

means a site that produces or blends 

calibration gas mixtures prepared and 

analyzed according to section 2 of the 

‘‘EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay 

and Certification of Gaseous Calibration 

Standards,’’ September 1997, EPA–600/ 

R–97/121 or such revised procedure as 

approved by the Administrator. 

EPA Protocol Gas Verification 

Program or PGVP means a calibration 

gas audit program described in 

§ 75.21(g) of this chapter and 

implemented by EPA in cooperation 

with the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST). 

* * * * * 

Qualified Individual (QI) means an 

individual who is identified by an 

AETB as meeting the requirements 

described in ASTM D7036–04 ‘‘Standard 

Practice for Competence of Air Emission 

Testing Bodies’’ (incorporated by 

reference under § 75.6 of this part), as of 

the date of testing. 

* * * * * 

Specialty Gas Company means an 

organization that wholly or partially 

owns or operates one or more EPA 

Protocol gas production sites. 

* * * * * 

PART 75—CONTINUOUS EMISSION 

MONITORING 

3. The authority citation for part 75 

continues to read as follows: 

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

7651k note. 

§ 75.2 [Amended] 

4. Section 75.2 is amended by 

removing paragraph (d). 

5. Section 75.4 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and 

(c)(2); 

b. Revising paragraph (d) introductory 

text; and 

c. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (e), 

to read as follows: 

§ 75.4 Compliance dates. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) 180 calendar days after the date 

the unit commences commercial 

operation, notice of which date shall be 

provided under subpart G of this part. 

(c) * * * 

(2) 180 calendar days after the date on 

which the unit becomes subject to the 

requirements of the Acid Rain Program, 

notice of which date shall be provided 

under subpart G of this part. 

(d) This paragraph (d) applies to 

affected units under the Acid Rain 

Program and to units subject to a State 

or Federal pollutant mass emissions 

reduction program that adopts the 

emission monitoring and reporting 

provisions of this part. In accordance 

with § 75.20, for an affected unit which, 

on the applicable compliance date, is 

either in long-term cold storage (as 

defined in § 72.2 of this chapter) or is 

shut down as the result of a planned 

outage or a forced outage, thereby 

preventing the required continuous 

monitoring system certification tests 

from being completed by the 

compliance date, the owner or operator 

shall provide notice of such unit storage 

or outage in accordance with 

§ 75.61(a)(3) or § 75.61(a)(7), as 

applicable. For the planned and 

unplanned unit outages described in 

this paragraph (d), the owner or operator 

shall ensure that all of the continuous 

monitoring systems for SO2, NOX, CO2, 

opacity, and volumetric flow rate 

required under this part (or under the 

applicable State or Federal mass 

emissions reduction program) are 

installed and that all required 

certification tests are completed no later 

than 90 unit operating days or 180 

calendar days (whichever occurs first) 

after the date that the unit recommences 

commercial operation, notice of which 

date shall be provided under 

§ 75.61(a)(3) or § 75.61(a)(7), as 

applicable. The owner or operator shall 

determine and report SO2 concentration, 

NOX emission rate, CO2 concentration, 

and flow rate data (as applicable) for all 

unit operating hours after the applicable 

compliance date until all of the required 

certification tests are successfully 

completed, using either: 

(1) The maximum potential 

concentration of SO2 (as defined in 

section 2.1.1.1 of appendix A to this 

part), the maximum potential NOX

emission rate, as defined in § 72.2 of 

this chapter, the maximum potential 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33406 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

flow rate, as defined in section 2.1.4.1 

of appendix A to this part, or the 

maximum potential CO2 concentration, 

as defined in section 2.1.3.1 of appendix 

A to this part; or 

* * * * * 

(e) In accordance with § 75.20, if the 

owner or operator of an affected unit 

completes construction of a new stack 

or flue, flue gas desulfurization system, 

or add-on NOX emission controls after 

the applicable deadline in paragraph (a) 

or (b) of this section: 

(1) The owner or operator shall ensure 

that all required certification and/or 

recertification and/or diagnostic tests of 

the monitoring systems required under 

this part (i.e., the SO2, NOX, CO2, 

opacity, and volumetric flow rate 

monitoring systems, as applicable) are 

completed not later than 90 unit 

operating days or 180 calendar days 

(whichever occurs first) after: 

(i) The date that emissions first exit to 

the atmosphere through the new stack 

or flue, notice of which date shall be 

provided under subpart G of this part; 

or 

(ii) The date that reagent is first 

injected into the flue gas desulfurization 

system or add-on NOX emission 

controls, notice of which date shall be 

provided under subpart G of this part. 

(2) If the project involves both new 

stack or flue construction and 

installation of add-on emission controls, 

the 90 unit operating days and 180 

calendar days shall be reckoned from 

the date that emissions first exit to the 

atmosphere through the new stack or 

flue. 

(3) The owner or operator shall 

determine and report SO2 concentration, 

NOX emission rate, CO2 concentration, 

and volumetric flow rate data for all 

unit operating hours after emissions first 

pass through the new stack or flue, or 

reagent is injected into the flue gas 

desulfurization system or add-on NOX

emission controls (as applicable) until 

all required certification and/or 

recertification and/or diagnostic tests 

are successfully completed, using either: 

(i) The applicable missing data 

substitution procedures under §§ 75.31 

through 75.37; or 

(ii) The conditional data validation 

provisions of § 75.20(b)(3); or 

(iii) Reference methods under 

§ 75.22(b); or 

(iv) Another procedure approved by 

the Administrator pursuant to a petition 

under § 75.66. 

* * * * * 

6. Section 75.6 is amended by: 

a. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

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

b. Revising paragraphs (a)(48) and 

(f)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 75.6 Incorporation by reference. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(38) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(43) [Reserved] 

(44) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(48) ASTM D7036–04, Standard 

Practice for Competence of Air Emission 

Testing Bodies, for § 72.2, 

§ 75.59(a)(9)(xi)(iii), (a)(15)(iii), 

(b)(6)(iii), (d)(4)(iii), and appendix A, 

§ 6.1.2 of this part. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) American Petroleum Institute 

(API) Manual of Petroleum 

Measurement Standards, Chapter 4— 

Proving Systems, Section 2—Pipe 

Provers (Provers Accumulating at Least 

10,000 Pulses), Second Edition, March 

2001, Section 3—Small Volume Provers, 

First Edition, and Section 5—MasterMeter Provers, Second Edition, May 

2000, for appendix D to this part. 

* * * * * 

7. Section 75.10 is amended by: 

a. Revising the second sentence of 

paragraph (d)(1); and 

b. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (d)(3), to read as follows: 

§ 75.10 General operating requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * The owner or operator shall 

reduce all SO2 concentrations, 

volumetric flow, SO2 mass emissions, 

CO2 concentration, O2 concentration, 

CO2 mass emissions (if applicable), NOX

concentration, and NOX emission rate 

data collected by the monitors to hourly 

averages. * * * 

* * * * * 

(3) Failure of an SO2, CO2, or O2

emissions concentration monitor, NOX

concentration monitor, flow monitor, 

moisture monitor, or NOX-diluent 

continuous emission monitoring system 

to acquire the minimum number of data 

points for calculation of an hourly 

average in paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section shall result in the failure to 

obtain a valid hour of data and the loss 

of such component data for the entire 

hour. * * * 

* * * * * 

§ 75.15 [Removed and reserved] 

8. Section 75.15 is removed and 

reserved as follows: 

9. Section 75.20 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(i); 

b. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (b) introductory text; 

c. Revising paragraph (c)(1) 

introductory text; 

d. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and 

(c)(1)(iii); 

e. Removing paragraph (c)(1)(vi); 

f. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(c)(9); and 

g. Removing paragraph (d)(2)(ix), to 

read as follows: 

§ 75.20 Initial certification and 

recertification procedures. 

(a) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(i) Until such time, date, and hour as 

the continuous emission monitoring 

system can be adjusted, repaired, or 

replaced and certification tests 

successfully completed (or, if the 

conditional data validation procedures 

in paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) through (b)(3)(ix) 

of this section are used, until a 

probationary calibration error test is 

passed following corrective actions in 

accordance with paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of 

this section), the owner or operator shall 

substitute the following values, as 

applicable, for each hour of unit 

operation during the period of invalid 

data specified in paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of 

this section or in § 75.21: The maximum 

potential concentration of SO2, as 

defined in section 2.1.1.1 of appendix A 

to this part, to report SO2 concentration; 

the maximum potential NOX emission 

rate, as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter, 

to report NOX emissions in lb/mmBtu; 

the maximum potential concentration of 

NOX, as defined in section 2.1.2.1 of 

appendix A to this part, to report NOX

emissions in ppm (when a NOX

concentration monitoring system is used 

to determine NOX mass emissions, as 

defined under § 75.71(a)(2)); the 

maximum potential flow rate, as defined 

in section 2.1.4.1 of appendix A to this 

part, to report volumetric flow; the 

maximum potential concentration of 

CO2, as defined in section 2.1.3.1 of 

appendix A to this part, to report CO2

concentration data; and either the 

minimum potential moisture 

percentage, as defined in section 2.1.5 of 

appendix A to this part or, if Equation 

19–3, 19–4 or 19–8 in Method 19 in 

appendix A to part 60 of this chapter is 

used to determine NOX emission rate, 

the maximum potential moisture 

percentage, as defined in section 2.1.6 of 

appendix A to this part; and 

* * * * * 

(b) Recertification approval process. 

Whenever the owner or operator makes 

a replacement, modification, or change 

in a certified continuous emission 

monitoring system or continuous 

opacity monitoring system that may 

significantly affect the ability of the 

system to accurately measure or record 

the SO2 or CO2 concentration, stack gas 

volumetric flow rate, NOX emission rate, 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 33407 

NOX concentration, percent moisture, or 

opacity, or to meet the requirements of 

§ 75.21 or appendix B to this part, the 

owner or operator shall recertify the 

continuous emission monitoring system 

or continuous opacity monitoring 

system, according to the procedures in 

this paragraph. * * * 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) For each SO2 pollutant 

concentration monitor, each NOX

concentration monitoring system used 

to determine NOX mass emissions, as 

defined under § 75.71(a)(2), and each 

NOX-diluent continuous emission 

monitoring system: 

* * * * * 

(ii) A linearity check, where, for the 

NOX-diluent continuous emission 

monitoring system, the test is performed 

separately on the NOX pollutant 

concentration monitor and the diluent 

gas monitor; 

(iii) A relative accuracy test audit. For 

the NOX-diluent continuous emission 

monitoring system, the RATA shall be 

done on a system basis, in units of lb/ 

mmBtu. For the NOX concentration 

monitoring system, the RATA shall be 

done on a ppm basis; 

* * * * * 

(9) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

10. Section 75.21 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a)(3); and 

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

read as follows: 

§ 75.21 Quality assurance and quality 

control requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(3) The owner or operator shall 

perform quality assurance upon a 

reference method backup monitoring 

system according to the requirements of 

Method 2, 6C, 7E, or 3A in Appendices 

A–1, A–2 and A–4 to part 60 of this 

chapter (supplemented, as necessary, by 

guidance from the Administrator), 

instead of the procedures specified in 

appendix B to this part. 

* * * * * 

(f) Requirements for Air Emission 

Testing. On and after [DATE THAT IS 

SIX MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE], relative 

accuracy testing under § 75.74(c)(2)(ii), 

section 6.5 of appendix A to this part, 

and section 2.3.1 of appendix B to this 

part, and stack testing under § 75.19 and 

section 2.1 of appendix E to this part 

shall be performed by an ‘‘Air Emission 

Testing Body’’, as defined in § 72.2 of 

this chapter. Conformance to the 

requirements of ASTM D7036–04, 

referred to in section 6.1.2 of appendix 

A to this part, section 1.1.4 of appendix 

B to this part, and section 2.1 of 

appendix E to this part shall apply only 

to these tests. Tests and activities under 

this part that do not have to be 

performed by an AETB as defined in 

§ 72.2 include daily CEMS operation, 

daily calibration error checks, daily flow 

interference checks, quarterly linearity 

checks, routine maintenance of CEMS, 

voluntary emissions testing, or 

emissions testing required under other 

regulations. 

(g) Requirements for EPA Protocol Gas 

Verification Program. Any EPA Protocol 

gas production site that chooses to 

participate in the EPA Protocol Gas 

Verification Program (PGVP) must 

notify the Administrator of its intent to 

participate. An EPA Protocol gas 

production site’s initial participation 

shall commence immediately upon such 

notification and shall extend through 

the end of the calendar year in which 

notification is provided. EPA will issue 

a vendor ID to each participating EPA 

Protocol gas production site. In each 

year of the PGVP, EPA may audit up to 

four EPA Protocol gas cylinders from 

each participating EPA Protocol gas 

production site. 

(1) A production site participating in 

the PGVP shall provide the following 

information in its initial and ongoing 

notifications to EPA: 

(i) The specialty gas company name 

which owns or operates the production 

site; 

(ii) The name and address of that 

participating EPA Protocol gas 

production site, owned or operated by 

the specialty gas company; and 

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

telephone number of a contact person 

for that participating EPA Protocol gas 

production site. 

(2) An EPA Protocol gas production 

site that elects to continue participating 

in the PGVP in the next calendar year 

must notify the Administrator of its 

intent to continue in the program by 

December 31 of the current year by 

submitting to EPA the information 

described in paragraph (g)(1) of this 

section. 

(3) EPA Protocol gas production sites 

shall provide the initial and on-going 

notifications described in paragraph 

(g)(1) of this section by following the 

instructions on the Forms page of the 

CAMD Web site (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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33408 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

event that an EPA Protocol gas 

production site is removed from the list 

of PGVP participants after such gases 

are procured, but before the gases have 

been consumed, the gas cylinders may 

continue to be used for the purposes of 

this part until the earlier of the 

cylinder’s expiration date or the date on 

which the cylinder gas pressure reaches 

150 psig. 

(7) EPA Protocol gas cylinders 

purchased prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF FINAL RULE] from a production site 

that is not participating in the PGVP 

may be used for the purposes of this 

part until the earlier of the cylinder’s 

expiration date or the date on which the 

cylinder gas pressure reaches 150 psig. 

(8) If EPA notifies a participating EPA 

Protocol gas production site that its EPA 

Protocol gas cylinders are being audited 

and identifies the purchaser as an EPA 

representative or contractor 

participating in the audit process, the 

production site shall then either cancel 

that purchaser’s invoice or credit that 

purchaser’s account for the purchase of 

those EPA Protocol gas cylinders, and 

provide sufficient funding to NIST for 

analysis of those EPA Protocol gas 

cylinders by NIST, and for the 

production site’s pro-rata share of a 

NIST electronic audit report on all 

cylinders in the current audit, as 

specified in paragraphs (g)(9)(i) through 

(g)(9)(v) of this section, for demurrage, 

and for return shipment of its cylinders. 

(9) If EPA notifies a participating EPA 

Protocol gas production site that its EPA 

Protocol gas cylinders are being audited, 

then: 

(i) Each participating EPA Protocol 

gas production site must reach formal 

agreement with NIST to analyze its EPA 

Protocol gas cylinders provided for 

audit as soon after NIST receives the 

batch containing those cylinders as 

possible, preferably within two weeks, 

using analytical procedures consistent 

with metrology institute practices and at 

least as rigorous as the ‘‘EPA 

Traceability Protocol for Assay and 

Certification of Gaseous Calibration 

Standards’’ (Traceability Protocol), 

September 1997 (EPA–600/R–97/121) or 

equivalent written cylinder analysis 

protocol that has been approved by 

EPA. 

(ii) Each cylinder’s concentration 

must be determined by NIST and the 

results compared to each cylinder’s 

certification documentation and tag 

value to establish conformance with 

section 5.1 of appendix A to this part. 

After NIST analysis, each cylinder must 

be provided with a NIST analyzed 

concentration with an uncertainty of 

plus or minus 1.0 percent (inclusive) or 

better, unless otherwise approved by 

EPA. 

(iii) The certification documentation 

accompanying each cylinder must be 

verified in the audit report as meeting 

the requirements of the Traceability 

Protocol or a revised procedure 

approved by the Administrator. 

(iv) Each participating EPA Protocol 

gas production site shall have NIST 

provide all of the information required 

by paragraphs (g)(9)(ii) through (g)(9)(v) 

of this section in an audit report. The 

audit report shall be submitted 

electronically by NIST to EPA upon 

completion of the current audit. The 

audit report shall contain complete 

documentation of the NIST procedures 

used to analyze the cylinders, including 

the analytical reference standards, 

analytical method, analytical method 

uncertainty, analytical instrumentation, 

and instrument calibration procedures. 

The audit report shall include a table 

with the information and in the format 

specified by Figure 3 (or the Note below 

Figure 3, as applicable) of appendix B 

to this part or such revised format as 

approved by the Administrator. The 

Agency will post the results of the NIST 

analyses in the same format on EPA 

Web sites. 

(v) For EPA Protocol gas production 

sites that produce EPA Protocol gas 

cylinders claiming NIST traceability for 

both NO and NOX concentrations in the 

same cylinder, if analyzed by NIST for 

the PGVP, such cylinders must be 

analyzed by NIST for both the NO and 

NOX components (where total NOX is 

determined by NO plus NO2) and the 

results of the analyses shall be included 

in the audit report. 

(10) After analysis by NIST, each EPA 

Protocol gas cylinder shall be returned 

to the EPA Protocol gas production site 

that provided it. 

(11) The data validation procedures 

under §§ 2.1.4, 2.2.3, and 2.3.2 of 

appendix B to this part apply. 

11. Section 75.22 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

b. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(iv); 

c. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(v) 

d. Removing paragraph (a)(7); 

e. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text; and 

f. Removing paragraphs (b)(5) through 

(b)(8), to read as follows: 

§ 75.22 Reference test methods. 

(a) The owner or operator shall use 

the following methods, which are found 

in appendices A–1 through A–4 to part 

60 of this chapter, to conduct the 

following tests: Monitoring system tests 

for certification or recertification of 

continuous emission monitoring 

Systems; NOX emission tests of low 

mass emission units under 

§ 75.19(c)(1)(iv); NOX emission tests of 

excepted monitoring systems under 

appendix E to this part; and required 

quality assurance and quality control 

tests: 

* * * * * 

(5) * * * 

(iv) Section 8.6 of the method 

allowing for the use of ‘‘Dynamic 

Spiking’’ as an alternative to the 

interference and system bias checks of 

the method. Dynamic spiking may be 

conducted (optionally) as an additional 

quality assurance check; and 

(v) That portion of Section 8.5 of the 

method allowing multiple sampling 

runs to be conducted before performing 

the post-run system bias check or 

system calibration error check. 

* * * * * 

(b) The owner or operator may use 

any of the following methods, which are 

found in appendices A–1 through A–4 

to part 60 of this chapter, as a reference 

method backup monitoring system to 

provide quality-assured monitor data: 

* * * * * 

12. Section 75.24 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 75.24 Out-of-control periods and 

adjustment for system bias. 

* * * * * 

(d) When the bias test indicates that 

an SO2 monitor, a flow monitor, a NOXdiluent continuous emission monitoring 

system, or a NOX concentration 

monitoring system used to determine 

NOX mass emissions, as defined in 

§ 75.71(a)(2), is biased low (i.e., the 

arithmetic mean of the differences 

between the reference method value and 

the monitor or monitoring system 

measurements in a relative accuracy test 

audit exceed the bias statistic in section 

7 of appendix A to this part), the owner 

or operator shall adjust the monitor or 

continuous emission monitoring system 

to eliminate the cause of bias such that 

it passes the bias test or calculate and 

use the bias adjustment factor as 

specified in section 2.3.4 of appendix B 

to this part. 

* * * * * 

13. Section 75.31 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 75.31 Initial missing data procedures. 

(a) During the first 720 qualityassured monitor operating hours 

following initial certification of the 

required SO2, CO2, O2, or moisture 

monitoring system(s) at a particular unit 

or stack location (i.e., the date and time 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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: 

§ 75.32 Determination of monitor data 

availability for standard missing data 

procedures. 

(a) Following initial certification of 

the required SO2, CO2, O2, or moisture 

monitoring system(s) at a particular unit 

or stack location (i.e., the date and time 

at which quality assured data begins to 

be recorded by CEMS(s) at that 

location), the owner or operator shall 

begin calculating the percent monitor 

data availability as described in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and 

shall, upon completion of the first 720 

quality-assured monitor operating 

hours, record, by means of the 

automated data acquisition and 

handling system, the percent monitor 

data availability for each monitored 

parameter. * * * 

* * * * * 

15. Section 75.33 is amended by: 

a. Revising the section heading; and 

b. Revising Table 1 and the footnotes 

below Table 1, to read as follows: 

§ 75.33 Standard missing data procedures 

for SO2, NOX, and flow rate. 

* * * * * 

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

MONITORS FOR HEAT INPUT DETERMINATION

Trigger conditions Calculation routines 

Monitor data availability 

(percent) 

Duration (N) of CEMS outage 

(hours) 2 Method Lookback period 

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

N > 24 .................................... For SO2, CO2, and H2O**, the greater of: HB/HA. 

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

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

For O2 and H2Ox, the lesser of: HB/HA. 

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

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

N > 8 ...................................... For SO2, CO2, and H2O**, the greater of: HB/HA. 

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

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

For O2 and H2Ox, the lesser of: 

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

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

80 or more, but below 90 ....... N > 0 ...................................... For SO2, CO2, and H2O**, Maximum value1 ........................ 720 hours*. 

For O2 and H2Ox: Minimum value1 ....................................... 720 hours*. 

Below 80 ................................. N > 0 ...................................... Maximum potential concentration3 or % (for SO2, CO2, and 

H2O**) or 

None 

Minimum potential concentration or % (for O2 and H2Ox).

HB/HA = hour before and hour after the CEMS outage. 

* Quality-assured, monitor operating hours, during unit operation. May be either fuel-specific or non-fuel-specific. For units that report data only 

for the ozone season, include only quality assured monitor operating hours within the ozone season in the lookback period. Use data from no 

earlier than 3 years prior to the missing data period. 1Where a unit with add-on SO2 emission controls can demonstrate that the controls are operating properly during the missing data period, as 

provided in § 75.34, the unit may use the maximum controlled concentration from the previous 720 quality-assured monitor operating hours. 2 During unit operating hours. 

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

unit may report the greater of: (a) The maximum expected SO2 concentration or (b) 1.25 times the maximum controlled value from the previous 

720 quality-assured monitor operating hours (see § 75.34). x Use this algorithm for moisture except when Equation 19–3, 19–4 or 19–8 in Method 19 in appendix A–7 to part 60 of this chapter is used for 

NOX emission rate. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33410 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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

NOX emission rate. 

* * * * * 

16. Section 75.34 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii); and 

b. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (d), to read as follows: 

§ 75.34 Units with add-on emission 

controls. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) For the purposes of the missing 

data lookback periods described under 

§§ 75.33 (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3) and (c)(5) of 

this section, the substitute data values 

shall be taken from the appropriate 

database, depending on the date(s) and 

hour(s) of the missing data period. That 

is, if the missing data period occurs 

inside the ozone season, the ozone 

season data shall be used to provide 

substitute data. If the missing data 

period occurs outside the ozone season, 

data from outside the ozone season shall 

be used to provide substitute data. 

* * * * * 

(d) In order to implement the options 

in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3) and (a)(5) of 

this section; and §§ 75.31(c)(3) and 

75.72(c)(3), the owner or operator shall 

keep records of information as described 

in § 75.58(b)(3) to verify the proper 

operation of all add-on SO2 or NOX

emission controls, during all periods of 

SO2 or NOX emission missing data. 

* * * 

§§ 75.38–75.39 [Removed and Reserved] 

17. Sections 75.38 and 75.39 are 

removed and reserved. 

18. Section 75.47 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (b)(2); and 

b. Removing paragraphs (b)(3) and (c), 

to read as follows: 

§ 75.47 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: 

§ 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 crosssectional area (ft2) at the flue exit and 

at the flow monitoring location (for 

units with flow monitors, only). Also 

use appropriate codes to indicate the 

material(s) of construction and the 

shape(s) of the stack or duct crosssection(s) at the flue exit and (if 

applicable) at the flow monitor location. 

On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE], provide the activation 

date and deactivation date (if 

applicable) for the information in this 

paragraph (g)(1)(i)(C); 

* * * * * 

(E) The type(s) of emission controls 

that are used to reduce SO2, NOX, and 

particulate emissions from each unit. 

Also provide the installation date, 

optimization date, and retirement date 

(if applicable) of the emission controls, 

and indicate whether the controls are an 

original installation; 

(F) Maximum hourly heat input 

capacity of each unit. On and after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

provide the activation date and 

deactivation date (if applicable) for this 

parameter; and 

* * * * * 

(iii) For each required continuous 

emission monitoring system, each fuel 

flowmeter system, and each continuous 

opacity monitoring system, identify and 

describe the major monitoring 

components in the monitoring system 

(e.g., gas analyzer, flow monitor, opacity 

monitor, moisture sensor, fuel 

flowmeter, DAHS software, etc.). Other 

important components in the system 

(e.g., sample probe, PLC, data logger, 

etc.) may also be represented in the 

monitoring plan, if necessary. Provide 

the following specific information about 

each component and monitoring system: 

* * * * * 

(v) * * * 

(F) Effective date/hour, and (if 

applicable) inactivation date/hour of 

each span value. On and after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

provide the activation date and 

deactivation date (if applicable) for the 

measurement scale and dual span 

information in paragraphs (g)(1)(v)(A), 

(g)(1)(v)(G), and (g)(1)(v)(H) of this 

section; 

(G) An indication of whether dual 

spans are required. If two span values 

are required, then, on and after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

indicate whether an autoranging 

analyzer is used to represent the two 

measurement scales; and 

* * * * * 

(vi) * * * 

(H) Date and hour that the value is no 

longer effective (if applicable); 

(I) For units using the excepted 

methodology under § 75.19, the 

applicable SO2 emission factor; and 

(J) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF FINAL RULE], group identification 

code. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Electronic. Unit operating and 

capacity factor information 

demonstrating that the unit qualifies as 

a peaking unit, as defined in § 72.2 of 

this chapter for the current calendar 

year or ozone season, including: 

Capacity factor data for three calendar 

years (or ozone seasons) as specified in 

the definition of peaking unit in § 72.2 

of this chapter; the method of 

qualification used; and an indication of 

whether the data are actual or projected 

data. On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF FINAL RULE], provide the 

activation date and deactivation date (if 

applicable) for the peaking unit 

qualification information in this 

paragraph (h)(2)(i). 

* * * * * 

(5) For qualification as a gas-fired 

unit, as defined in § 72.2 of this part, the 

designated representative shall include 

in the monitoring plan, in electronic 

format, the following: Current calendar 

year, fuel usage data for three calendar 

years (or ozone seasons) as specified in 

the definition of gas-fired in § 72.2 of 

this chapter, the method of qualification 

used, and an indication of whether the 

data are actual or projected data. On and 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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: 

§ 75.57 General recordkeeping provisions. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(5) The current monitoring plan as 

specified in § 75.53, beginning with the 

initial submission required by § 75.62; 

(6) The quality control plan as 

described in section 1 of appendix B to 

this part, beginning with the date of 

provisional certification; and 

(7) The information required by 

sections 6.1.2(b) and (c) of appendix A 

to this part. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 4a—CODES FOR METHOD OF EMISSIONS AND FLOW DETERMINATION

Code Hourly emissions/flow measurement or estimation method 

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

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

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

4 ............. Reference method: 

SO2: Method 6C. 

Flow: Method 2 or its allowable alternatives under appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. 

NOX: Method 7E. 

CO2 or O2: Method 3A. 

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

preapproved parametric monitoring method. 

6 ............. Average of the hourly SO2 concentrations, CO2 concentrations, O2 concentrations, NOX concentrations, flow rates, moisture percentages or NOX emission rates for the hour before and the hour following a missing data period. 

7 ............. Initial missing data procedures used. Either: (a) the average of the hourly SO2 concentration, CO2 concentration, O2 concentration, 

or moisture percentage for the hour before and the hour following a missing data period; or (b) the arithmetic average of all NOX

concentration, NOX emission rate, or flow rate values at the corresponding load range (or a higher load range), or at the corresponding operational bin (non-load-based units, only); or (c) the arithmetic average of all previous NOX concentration, NOX

emission rate, or flow rate values (non-load-based units, only). 

8 ............. 90th percentile hourly SO2 concentration, CO2 concentration, NOX concentration, flow rate, moisture percentage, or NOX emission 

rate or 10th percentile hourly O2 concentration or moisture percentage in the applicable lookback period (moisture missing data algorithm depends on which equations are used for emissions and heat input). 

9 ............. 95th percentile hourly SO2 concentration, CO2 concentration, NOX concentration, flow rate, moisture percentage, or NOX emission 

rate or 5th percentile hourly O2 concentration or moisture percentage in the applicable lookback period (moisture missing data algorithm depends on which equations are used for emissions and heat input). 

10 ........... Maximum hourly SO2 concentration, CO2 concentration, NOX concentration, flow rate, moisture percentage, or NOX emission rate or 

minimum hourly O2 concentration or moisture percentage in the applicable lookback period (moisture missing data algorithm depends on which equations are used for emissions and heat input). 

11 ........... Average of hourly flow rates, NOX concentrations or NOX emission rates in corresponding load range, for the applicable lookback 

period. For non-load-based units, report either the average flow rate, NOX concentration or NOX emission rate in the applicable 

lookback period, or the average flow rate or NOX value at the corresponding operational bin (if operational bins are used). 

12 ........... Maximum potential concentration of SO2, maximum potential concentration of CO2, maximum potential concentration of NOX maximum potential flow rate, maximum potential NOX emission rate, maximum potential moisture percentage, minimum potential O2

concentration or minimum potential moisture percentage, as determined using § 72.2 of this chapter and section 2.1 of appendix A

to this part (moisture missing data algorithm depends on which equations are used for emissions and heat input). 

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

(See § 75.34(a)(5)). 

14 ........... Diluent cap value (if the cap is replacing a CO2 measurement, use 5.0 percent for boilers and 1.0 percent for turbines; if it is replacing an O2 measurement, use 14.0 percent for boilers and 19.0 percent for turbines). 

15 ........... 1.25 times the maximum hourly controlled SO2 concentration, Hg concentration, NOX concentration at the corresponding load or 

operational bin, or NOX emission rate at the corresponding load or operational bin, in the applicable lookback period (See 

§ 75.34(a)(5)). 

16 ........... SO2 concentration value of 2.0 ppm during hours when only ‘‘very low sulfur fuel’’, as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter, is combusted. 

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

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

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

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

zero. 

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

controls only). 

23 ........... Maximum potential SO2 concentration, NOX concentration, CO2 concentration, or NOX emission rate, or minimum potential O2 concentration or moisture percentage, for an hour in which flue gases are discharged through an unmonitored bypass stack. 

24 ........... Maximum expected NOX concentration, or maximum controlled NOX emission rate for an hour in which flue gases are discharged 

downstream of the NOX emission controls through an unmonitored bypass stack, and the add-on NOX emission controls are confirmed to be operating properly. 

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

monitor is unavailable.) 

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

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

53 ........... Other quality-assured data approved through petition. These are treated as available hours for percent monitor availability calculations and are included in missing data lookback. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33412 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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

Code Hourly emissions/flow measurement or estimation method 

54 ........... Other quality assured methodologies approved through petition. These hours are included in missing data lookback and are treated 

as unavailable hours for percent monitor availability calculations. 

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: 

§ 75.58 General recordkeeping provisions 

for specific situations. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Except as otherwise provided in 

§ 75.34(d), for units with add-on SO2 or 

NOX emission controls following the 

provisions of §§ 75.34(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3) 

or (a)(5), the owner or operator shall 

record: 

(i) Parametric data which 

demonstrate, for each hour of missing 

SO2 or NOX emission data, the proper 

operation of the add-on emission 

controls, as described in the quality 

assurance/quality control program for 

the unit. The parametric data shall be 

maintained on site and shall be 

submitted, upon request, to the 

Administrator, EPA Regional office, 

State, or local agency; 

(ii) A flag indicating, for each hour of 

missing SO2 or NOX emission data, 

either that the add-on emission controls 

are operating properly, as evidenced by 

all parameters being within the ranges 

specified in the quality assurance/ 

quality control program, or that the addon emission controls are not operating 

properly. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ii) For boilers, hourly average boiler 

O2 reading (percent, rounded to the 

nearest tenth) (flag if value exceeds by 

more than 2 percentage points the O2

level recorded at the same heat input 

during the previous NOX emission rate 

test); and 

(iii) On and after [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: 

§ 75.59 Certification, quality assurance, 

and quality control record provisions. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) For each SO2 or NOX pollutant 

concentration monitor, flow monitor, 

CO2 emissions concentration monitor 

(including O2 monitors used to 

determine CO2 emissions), or diluent 

gas monitor (including wet- and drybasis O2 monitors used to determine 

percent moisture), the owner or operator 

shall record the following for all daily 

and 7-day calibration error tests, and all 

off-line calibration demonstrations, 

including any follow-up tests after 

corrective action: 

* * * * * 

(iii) On and after [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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 75.60(b)(6) or § 75.63, the reports shall 

include, at a minimum, the following 

elements (as applicable to the type(s) of 

test(s) performed): 

* * * * * 

(vi) Laboratory calibrations of the 

source sampling equipment. 

* * * * * 

(x) For testing involving use of EPA 

Protocol gases, the owner or operator 

shall record in electronic and hardcopy 

format the following information, as 

applicable: 

(A) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX 

MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE], for each gas 

monitor, for both low and high 

measurement ranges, record the 

following information for the mid-level 

or high-level EPA Protocol gas (as 

applicable) that is used for daily 

calibration error tests, and the low-, 

mid-, and high-level gases used for 

quarterly linearity checks. For O2, if 

purified air is used as the high-level gas 

for daily calibrations or linearity checks, 

record the following information for the 

low- and mid-level EPA Protocol gas 

used for linearity checks, instead: 

(1) Gas level code; 

(2) A code for the type of EPA 

Protocol gas used; 

(3) Start date and hour for EPA 

Protocol gas type code; 

(4) End date and hour (if applicable) 

for EPA Protocol gas type code; 

(5) The PGVP vendor ID issued by 

EPA for the EPA Protocol gas 

production site that supplied the gas 

cylinder. 

(6) Start date and hour for PGVP 

vendor ID; and 

(7) End date and hour (if applicable) 

for PGVP vendor ID. 

(B) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX 

MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE], for each usage 

of Reference Method 3A in appendix A– 

2 to part 60 of this chapter, or Method 

6C or 7E in appendix A–4 to part 60 of 

this chapter performed using EPA 

Protocol gas for the certification, 

recertification, routine quality assurance 

or diagnostic testing (reportable 

diagnostics, only) of a Part 75 

monitoring system, record the 

information required by paragraphs 

(a)(9)(x)(A)(1), (2), and (5) of this 

section. 

(xi) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX 

MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE], for all RATAs 

performed pursuant to § 75.74(c)(2)(ii), 

section 6.5 of appendix A to this part 

and section 2.3.1 of appendix B to this 

part, and for all NOX emission testing 

performed pursuant to section 2.1 of 

appendix E to this part, or 

§ 75.19(c)(1)(iv), the owner or operator 

shall record the following information 

as provided by the AETB: 

(A) The name, telephone number and 

e-mail address of the Air Emission 

Testing Body; 

(B) The name of the on-site Qualified 

Individual, as defined in § 72.2 of this 

chapter; 

(C) For the reference method(s) that 

were performed, the date that the on-site 

Qualified Individual took and passed 

the relevant qualification exam(s) 

required by ASTM D 7036–04; and 

(D) The name and e-mail address of 

the qualification exam provider. 

* * * * * 

(12) * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(E) Type of extension; 

(F) Quarter and year; and 

(G) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF FINAL RULE], fuel code for Ozone 

Season Only reporters under § 75.74(c). 

* * * * * 

(14) [Reserved] 

(15) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX 

MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE], for all RATAs 

performed pursuant to § 75.74(c)(2)(ii), 

section 6.5 of appendix A to this part or 

section 2.3.1 of appendix B to this part, 

the owner or operator shall record in 

electronic format the following 

information as provided by the AETB: 

(i) The name, telephone number and 

e-mail address of the Air Emission 

Testing Body; 

(ii) The name of the on-site Qualified 

Individual, as defined in § 72.2 of this 

chapter; 

(iii) For the reference method(s) that 

were performed, the date that the on-site 

Qualified Individual took and passed 

the relevant qualification exam(s) 

required by ASTM D 7036–04; and 

(iv) The name and e-mail address of 

the qualification exam provider. 

(b) * * * 

(6) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX 

MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE], for all stack 

testing performed pursuant to section 

2.1 of appendix E to this part, the owner 

or operator shall record in electronic 

format the following information as 

provided by the AETB: 

(i) The name, telephone number and 

e-mail address of the Air Emission 

Testing Body; 

(ii) The name of the on-site Qualified 

Individual, as defined in § 72.2 of this 

chapter; 

(iii) For the reference method(s) that 

were performed, the date that the on-site 

Qualified Individual took and passed 

the relevant qualification exam(s) 

required by ASTM D 7036–04; and 

(iv) The name and e-mail address of 

the qualification exam provider. 

(c) Except as otherwise provided in 

§ 75.58(b)(3)(i), for units with add-on 

SO2 or NOX emission controls following 

the provisions of § 75.34(a)(1) or (a)(2), 

the owner or operator shall keep the 

following records on-site in the quality 

assurance/quality control plan required 

by section 1 of appendix B to this part: 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(x) Documentation supporting the 

qualification of all units in the group for 

reduced testing, in accordance with the 

criteria established in 

§ 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(B)(1); 

(xi) Purpose of group tests; 

(xii) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF FINAL RULE], the number of tests 

for group; and 

(xiii) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF FINAL RULE], the number of units 

in group. 

(4) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX 

MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE], for all NOX

emission testing performed pursuant to 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33414 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

§ 75.19(c)(1)(iv), the owner or operator 

shall record in electronic format the 

following information as provided by 

the AETB: 

(i) The name, telephone number and 

e-mail address of the Air Emission 

Testing Body; 

(ii) The name of the on-site Qualified 

Individual, as defined in § 72.2 of this 

chapter; 

(iii) For the reference method(s) that 

were performed, the date that the on-site 

Qualified Individual took and passed 

the relevant qualification exam(s) 

required by ASTM D 7036–04; and 

(iv) The name and e-mail address of 

the qualification exam provider. 

§ 75.60 [Amended] 

23. Section 75.60 is amended by 

removing paragraph (b)(8). 

24. Section 75.61 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) 

introductory text; 

b. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (a)(5) introductory text; and 

c. Revising paragraph (a)(8), to read as 

follows: 

§ 75.61 Notifications. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Initial certification and 

recertification test notifications. The 

owner or operator or designated 

representative for an affected unit shall 

submit written notification of initial 

certification tests and revised test dates 

as specified in § 75.20 for continuous 

emission monitoring systems, for 

alternative monitoring systems under 

subpart E of this part, or for excepted 

monitoring systems under appendix E to 

this part, except as provided in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(iii), (a)(1)(iv) and (a)(4) 

of this section. The owner or operator 

shall also provide written notification of 

testing performed under 

§ 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(A) to establish fuel-andunit-specific NOX emission rates for low 

mass emissions units. Such notifications 

are not required, however, for initial 

certifications and recertifications of 

excepted monitoring systems under 

appendix D to this part. 

* * * * * 

(5) Periodic relative accuracy test 

audits, appendix E retests, and low 

mass emissions unit retests. The owner 

or operator or designated representative 

of an affected unit shall submit written 

notice of the date of periodic relative 

accuracy testing performed under 

section 2.3.1 of appendix B to this part, 

of periodic retesting performed under 

section 2.2 of appendix E to this part, 

and of periodic retesting of low mass 

emissions units performed under 

§ 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(D), no later than 21 

days prior to the first scheduled day of 

testing. * * * 

* * * * * 

(8) Certification deadline date for new 

or newly affected units. The designated 

representative of a new or newly 

affected unit shall provide notification 

of the date on which the relevant 

deadline for initial certification is 

reached, either as provided in § 75.4(b) 

or § 75.4(c), or as specified in a State or 

Federal SO2 or NOX mass emission 

reduction program that incorporates by 

reference, or otherwise adopts, the 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements of subpart F, G, 

or H of this part. The notification shall 

be submitted no later than 7 calendar 

days after the applicable certification 

deadline is reached. 

* * * * * 

25. Section 75.62 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 75.62 Monitoring plan submittals. 

* * * * * 

(d) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF FINAL RULE], consistent with 

§ 72.21 of this chapter, a hardcopy cover 

letter signed by the Designated 

Representative (DR) or the Alternate 

Designated Representative (ADR) shall 

accompany each hardcopy monitoring 

plan submittal. The cover letter shall 

include the certification statement 

described in § 72.21(b) of this chapter, 

and shall be submitted to the applicable 

EPA Regional Office and to the 

appropriate State or local air pollution 

control agency. For electronic 

monitoring plan submittals to the 

Administrator, a cover letter is not 

required. However, at his or her 

discretion, the DR or ADR may include 

important explanatory text or comments 

with an electronic monitoring plan 

submittal, so long as the information is 

provided in an electronic format that is 

compatible with the other data required 

to be reported under this section. 

26. Section 75.63 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 75.63 Initial certification or recertification 

application. 

* * * * * 

(d) Consistent with § 72.21 of this 

chapter, a hardcopy cover letter signed 

by the Designated Representative (DR) 

or the Alternate Designated 

Representative (ADR) shall accompany 

the hardcopy portion of each 

certification or recertification 

application. The cover letter shall 

include the certification statement 

described in § 72.21(b) of this chapter, 

and shall be submitted to the applicable 

EPA Regional Office and to the 

appropriate State or local air pollution 

control agency. For the electronic 

portion of a certification or 

recertification application submitted to 

the Administrator, a cover letter is not 

required. However, at his or her 

discretion, the DR or ADR may include 

important explanatory text or comments 

with the electronic portion of a 

certification or recertification 

application, so long as the information 

is provided in an electronic format 

compatible with the other data required 

to be reported under this section. 

27. Section 75.64 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a)(5); 

b. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(xi); 

c. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(xii)(D); 

d. Adding paragraph (a)(7)(xiii); and 

e. Redesignating paragraph (a)(127) as 

paragraph (a)(12), to read as follows: 

§ 75.64 Quarterly reports. 

(a) * * * 

(5) Except for the daily calibration 

error test data, daily interference check, 

and off-line calibration demonstration 

information required in § 75.59(a)(1) 

and (2), which must always be 

submitted with the quarterly report, the 

certification, quality assurance, and 

quality control information required in 

§ 75.59 shall either be submitted prior to 

or concurrent with the submittal of the 

relevant quarterly electronic data report. 

On and after January 1, 2011, the 

information required in § 75.59(a)(9)(x), 

(a)(15), (b)(6), and (d)(4) shall either be 

submitted prior to or concurrent with 

the submittal of the relevant quarterly 

electronic data report. 

* * * * * 

(7) * * * 

(xi) Data and results of RATAs that 

are aborted or invalidated due to 

problems with the reference method or 

operational problems with the unit and 

data and results of linearity checks that 

are aborted or invalidated due to 

problems unrelated to monitor 

performance; 

(xii) * * * 

(D) The data under § 75.59(a)(7)(ix)(A) 

through (F) shall be reported for all flow 

RATAs at rectangular stacks or ducts in 

which Method 2 in appendices A–1 and 

A–2 to part 60 of this chapter is used 

and a wall effects adjustment factor is 

applied; and 

(xiii) The certification required by 

section 6.1.2(b) of appendix A to this 

part and recorded under § 75.57(a)(7). 

* * * * * 

Subpart I [Removed] 

28. Subpart I, consisting of §§ 75.80 

through 75.84 is removed. 

29. Appendix A to Part 75 is amended 

by: 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 § 72.2 of this chapter, must be 

certified by the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology to be within plus 

or minus 2.0 percent (inclusive) of the 

concentration specified on the cylinder label 

(i.e., the tag value) in order to be used as 

calibration gas under this part.* * * 

* * * * * 

6.1 General Requirements 

* * * * * 

6.1.2 Requirements for Air Emission Testing 

(a) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX 

MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE], all relative accuracy test 

audits (RATAs) of CEMS under this part, and 

stack testing in § 75.19 and Appendix E to 

this part shall be conducted by an Air 

Emission Testing Body (AETB) which has 

provided to the owner or operator of an 

affected unit the documentation required in 

paragraph (b) of this section, demonstrating 

its conformance to ASTM D7036–04 

(incorporated by reference under § 75.6 of 

this part). 

(b) The owner or operator shall obtain from 

the AETB a certification that as of the time 

of testing the AETB is operating in 

conformance with ASTM D7036–04. This 

certification shall be provided in the form of 

either: 

(1) A certificate of accreditation or interim 

accreditation for the relevant test methods 

issued by a recognized, national accreditation 

body; or 

(2) A letter of certification for the relevant 

test methods signed by a member of the 

senior management staff of the AETB. 

(c) The owner or operator shall obtain from 

the AETB the information required under 

paragraphs § 75.59(a)(15), (b)(6), and (d)(4), 

as applicable. 

(d) While under no obligation to request 

the following information from an AETB, to 

review the information provided by the 

AETB in response to such a request, or to 

take any other action related to the response, 

it is recommended that the owner or operator 

request that the AETB produce the following: 

(1) The AETB’s quality manual; 

(2) The results of any external or internal 

audits performed by the AETB during the 

prior 12 months; 

(3) A written description of any corrective 

actions being implemented by the AETB 

during the prior 12 months; and 

(4) Any AETB training records for the prior 

12 months. 

(e) All relative accuracy testing and stack 

testing in § 75.19 and Appendix E to this part 

shall be conducted or overseen on site by at 

least one Qualified Individual, as defined in 

§ 72.2 of this chapter with respect to the 

methods employed in the test project. When 

a QI oversees a test, the QI shall actively 

observe the test for its duration. If a QI 

conducts a test, the QI shall actively conduct 

the test for its duration. However, allowance 

is made for normal activities of a QI who is 

overseeing or conducting a test, e.g., 

bathroom breaks, food breaks, and 

emergencies that may arise during a test. If 

the source owner or operator, or a state, local, 

or EPA observer, discovers during the test 

period, that the QI did not conduct or oversee 

the entire test (as qualified by this paragraph 

(d)), only those portions of the test that were 

conducted or overseen by the QI as described 

above may be used under this part. 

(f) The certification described in paragraph 

(b) of this section, and compliance with 

paragraph (e) of this section, shall be 

sufficient proof of validity of test data that 

otherwise meet the requirements of this part. 

(g) If the Administrator finds that the 

information submitted to an affected source 

by an AETB under this section or the 

information requested by an affected source 

under this section is either incomplete or 

inaccurate, the Administrator may post the 

name of the offending AETB on Agency Web 

sites, and provide the AETB a description of 

the failures to be remedied. The AETB name 

will be removed from the EPA Web sites once 

the failures are remedied. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33416 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(h) If the Administrator finds that the 

information submitted to an affected source 

by an AETB under this section or the 

information requested by an affected source 

under this section is either incomplete or 

inaccurate, the AETB shall, on demand of the 

Administrator, provide to the Administrator 

evidence within a reasonable time of the 

demand that any missing information has 

been provided to the affected source and/or 

that any inaccurate information has been 

corrected. 

6.2 Linearity Check (General Procedures) 

Check the linearity of each SO2, NOX, CO2, 

and O2 monitor while the unit, or group of 

units for a common stack, is combusting fuel 

at conditions of typical stack temperature 

and pressure; it is not necessary for the unit 

to be generating electricity during this test. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

6.3 * * * 

6.3.1 Gas Monitor 7-Day Calibration Error 

Test 

The following monitors and ranges are 

exempted from the 7-day calibration error 

test requirements of this part: the SO2, NOX, 

CO2 and O2 monitors installed on peaking 

units (as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter); 

and any SO2 or NOX measurement range with 

a span value of 50 ppm or less. In all other 

cases, measure the calibration error of each 

SO2 monitor, each NOX monitor, and each 

CO2 or O2 monitor while the unit is 

combusting fuel (but not necessarily 

generating electricity) once each day for 7 

consecutive operating days according to the 

following procedures. (In the event that unit 

outages occur after the commencement of the 

test, the 7 consecutive unit operating days 

need not be 7 consecutive calendar days). 

Units using dual span monitors must perform 

the calibration error test on both high- and 

low-scales of the pollutant concentration 

monitor. The calibration error test procedures 

in this section and in section 6.3.2 of this 

appendix shall also be used to perform the 

daily assessments and additional calibration 

error tests required under sections 2.1.1 and 

2.1.3 of appendix B to this part. Do not make 

manual or automatic adjustments to the 

monitor settings until after taking 

measurements at both zero and high 

concentration levels for that day during the 

7-day test. If automatic adjustments are made 

following both injections, conduct the 

calibration error test such that the magnitude 

of the adjustments can be determined and 

recorded. Record and report test results for 

each day using the unadjusted concentration 

measured in the calibration error test prior to 

making any manual or automatic adjustments 

(i.e., resetting the calibration). The 

calibration error tests should be 

approximately 24 hours apart, (unless the 7- 

day test is performed over nonconsecutive 

days). Perform calibration error tests at both 

the zero-level concentration and high-level 

concentration, as specified in section 5.2 of 

this appendix. Alternatively, a mid-level 

concentration gas (50.0 to 60.0 percent of the 

span value) may be used in lieu of the highlevel gas, provided that the mid-level gas is 

more representative of the actual stack gas 

concentrations. In addition, repeat the 

procedure for SO2 and NOX pollutant 

concentration monitors using the low-scale 

for units equipped with emission controls or 

other units with dual span monitors. Use 

only calibration gas, as specified in section 

5.1 of this appendix. Introduce the 

calibration gas at the gas injection port, as 

specified in section 2.2.1 of this appendix. 

Operate each monitor in its normal sampling 

mode. For extractive and dilution type 

monitors, pass the calibration gas through all 

filters, scrubbers, conditioners, and other 

monitor components used during normal 

sampling and through as much of the 

sampling probe as is practical. For in-situ 

type monitors, perform calibration, checking 

all active electronic and optical components, 

including the transmitter, receiver, and 

analyzer. Challenge the pollutant 

concentration monitors and CO2 or O2

monitors once with each calibration gas. 

Record the monitor response from the data 

acquisition and handling system. Using 

Equation A–5 of this appendix, determine the 

calibration error at each concentration once 

each day (at approximately 24-hour intervals) 

for 7 consecutive days according to the 

procedures given in this section. The results 

of a 7-day calibration error test are acceptable 

for monitor or monitoring system 

certification, recertification or diagnostic 

testing if none of these daily calibration error 

test results exceed the applicable 

performance specifications in section 3.1 of 

this appendix. The status of emission data 

from a gas monitor prior to and during a 7- 

day calibration error test period shall be 

determined as follows: 

* * * * * 

6.4 Cycle Time Test 

Perform cycle time tests for each pollutant 

concentration monitor and continuous 

emission monitoring system while the unit is 

operating, according to the following 

procedures. Use a zero-level and a high-level 

calibration gas (as defined in section 5.2 of 

this appendix) alternately. To determine the 

downscale cycle time, measure the 

concentration of the flue gas emissions until 

the response stabilizes. Record the stable 

emissions value. Inject a zero-level 

concentration calibration gas into the probe 

tip (or injection port leading to the 

calibration cell, for in situ systems with no 

probe). Record the time of the zero gas 

injection, using the data acquisition and 

handling system (DAHS). Next, allow the 

monitor to measure the concentration of the 

zero gas until the response stabilizes. Record 

the stable ending calibration gas reading. 

Determine the downscale cycle time as the 

time it takes for 95.0 percent of the step 

change to be achieved between the stable 

stack emissions value and the stable ending 

zero gas reading. Then repeat the procedure, 

starting with stable stack emissions and 

injecting the high-level gas, to determine the 

upscale cycle time, which is the time it takes 

for 95.0 percent of the step change to be 

achieved between the stable stack emissions 

value and the stable ending high-level gas 

reading. Use the following criteria to assess 

when a stable reading of stack emissions or 

calibration gas concentration has been 

attained. A stable value is equivalent to a 

reading with a change of less than 2.0 percent 

of the span value for 2 minutes, or a reading 

with a change of less than 6.0 percent from 

the measured average concentration over 6 

minutes. Alternatively, the reading is 

considered stable if it changes by no more 

than 0.5 ppm or 0.2% CO2 or O2 (as 

applicable) for two minutes. (Owners or 

operators of systems which do not record 

data in 1-minute or 3-minute intervals may 

petition the Administrator under § 75.66 for 

alternative stabilization criteria). For 

monitors or monitoring systems that perform 

a series of operations (such as purge, sample, 

and analyze), time the injections of the 

calibration gases so they will produce the 

longest possible cycle time. Refer to Figures 

6a and 6b in this appendix for example 

calculations of upscale and downscale cycle 

times. Report the slower of the two cycle 

times (upscale or downscale) as the cycle 

time for the analyzer. Prior to January 1, 2009 

for the NOX-diluent continuous emission 

monitoring system test, either record and 

report the longer cycle time of the two 

component analyzers as the system cycle 

time or record the cycle time for each 

component analyzer separately (as 

applicable). On and after January 1, 2009, 

record the cycle time for each component 

analyzer separately. For time-shared systems, 

perform the cycle time tests at each probe 

locations that will be polled within the same 

15-minute period during monitoring system 

operations. To determine the cycle time for 

time-shared systems, at each monitoring 

location, report the sum of the cycle time 

observed at that monitoring location plus the 

sum of the time required for all purge cycles 

(as determined by the continuous emission 

monitoring system manufacturer) at each of 

the probe locations of the time-shared 

systems. For monitors with dual ranges, 

report the test results for each range 

separately. Cycle time test results are 

acceptable for monitor or monitoring system 

certification, recertification or diagnostic 

testing if none of the cycle times exceed 15 

minutes. The status of emissions data from a 

monitor prior to and during a cycle time test 

period shall be determined as follows: 

* * * * * 

6.5 Relative Accuracy and Bias Tests 

(General Procedures) 

Perform the required relative accuracy test 

audits (RATAs) as follows for each CO2

emissions concentration monitor (including 

O2 monitors used to determine CO2

emissions concentration), each SO2 pollutant 

concentration monitor, each NOX

concentration monitoring system used to 

determine NOX mass emissions, each flow 

monitor, each NOX-diluent CEMS, each O2 or 

CO2 diluent monitor used to calculate heat 

input, and each moisture monitoring system. 

For NOX concentration monitoring systems 

used to determine NOX mass emissions, as 

defined in § 75.71(a)(2), use the same general 

RATA procedures as for SO2 pollutant 

concentration monitors; however, use the 

reference methods for NOX concentration 

specified in section 6.5.10 of this appendix: 

* * * * * 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 § 72.2 of this chapter (or, for CEMS 

installed on common stacks or bypass stacks, 

168 consecutive stack operating hours, as 

defined in § 72.2 of this chapter). For 2-level 

and 3-level flow monitor RATAs, complete 

all of the RATAs at all levels, to the extent 

practicable, within a period of 168 

consecutive unit (or stack) operating hours; 

however, if this is not possible, up to 720 

consecutive unit (or stack) operating hours 

may be taken to complete a multiple-load 

flow RATA. 

* * * * * 

(g) For each SO2 or CO2 emissions 

concentration monitor, each flow monitor, 

each CO2 or O2 diluent monitor used to 

determine heat input, each NOX

concentration monitoring system used to 

determine NOX mass emissions, as defined in 

§ 75.71(a)(2), each moisture monitoring 

system, and each NOX-diluent CEMS, 

calculate the relative accuracy, in accordance 

with section 7.3 or 7.4 of this appendix, as 

applicable. In addition (except for CO2, O2, 

or moisture monitors), test for bias and 

determine the appropriate bias adjustment 

factor, in accordance with sections 7.6.4 and 

7.6.5 of this appendix, using the data from 

the relative accuracy test audits. 

6.5.1 Gas Monitoring System RATAs 

(Special Considerations) 

(a) Perform the required relative accuracy 

test audits for each SO2 or CO2 emissions 

concentration monitor, each CO2 or O2

diluent monitor used to determine heat 

input, each NOX-diluent CEMS, and each 

NOX concentration monitoring system used 

to determine NOX mass emissions, as defined 

in § 75.71(a)(2), at the normal load level or 

normal operating level for the unit (or 

combined units, if common stack), as defined 

in section 6.5.2.1 of this appendix. If two 

load levels or operating levels have been 

designated as normal, the RATAs may be 

done at either load (or operating) level. 

(b) For the initial certification of a gas 

monitoring system and for recertifications in 

which, in addition to a RATA, one or more 

other tests are required (i.e., a linearity test, 

cycle time test, or 7-day calibration error 

test), EPA recommends that the RATA not be 

commenced until the other required tests of 

the CEMS have been passed. 

* * * * * 

6.5.7 Sampling Strategy 

(a) Conduct the reference method tests 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 § 75.59(a)(5)(vii). Whenever the 

coefficient, K factor or algorithm is changed, 

a RATA of the moisture monitoring system 

is required. 

(b) To properly correlate individual SO2 or 

NOX CEMS data (in lb/mmBtu) and 

volumetric flow rate data with the reference 

method data, annotate the beginning and end 

of each reference method test run (including 

the exact time of day) on the individual chart 

recorder(s) or other permanent recording 

device(s). 

* * * * * 

6.5.10 Reference Methods 

The following methods are from appendix 

A to part 60 of this chapter, and are the 

reference methods for performing relative 

accuracy test audits under this part: Method 

1 or 1A in appendix A–1 to part 60 of this 

chapter for siting; Method 2 in appendix A– 

1 to part 60 of this chapter or its allowable 

alternatives in appendices A–1 and A–2 to 

part 60 of this chapter (except for Methods 

2B and 2E in appendix A–1 to part 60 of this 

chapter) for stack gas velocity and volumetric 

flow rate; Methods 3, 3A or 3B in appendix 

A–2 to part 60 of this chapter for O2 and CO2; 

Method 4 in appendix A–3 to part 60 of this 

chapter for moisture; Methods 6, 6A or 6C in 

appendix A–4 to part 60 of this chapter for 

SO2; and Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D or 7E in 

appendix A–4 to part 60 of this chapter for 

NOX, excluding the exceptions to Method 7E 

identified in § 75.22(a)(5). When using 

Method 7E for measuring NOX concentration, 

total NOX, including both NO and NO2, must 

be measured. When using EPA Protocol gas 

with Methods 3A, 6C, and 7E, the gas must 

be from an EPA Protocol gas production site 

that is participating in the EPA Protocol Gas 

Verification Program described in § 75.21(g). 

However, EPA Protocol gas cylinders 

purchased prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE] from a production site that is 

not participating in the PGVP may be used 

for the purposes of this part until the earlier 

of the cylinder’s expiration date or the date 

on which the cylinder gas pressure reaches 

150 psig. In the event that an EPA Protocol 

gas production site is removed from the list 

of PGVP participants after such gases are 

procured, but before the gases have been 

consumed, the gas cylinders may continue to 

be used for the purposes of this part until the 

earlier of the cylinder’s expiration date or the 

date on which the cylinder gas pressure 

reaches 150 psig. 

* * * * * 

7.3 Relative Accuracy for SO2 and CO2

Emissions Concentration Monitors, O2

Monitors, NOX Concentration Monitoring 

Systems, and Flow Monitors 

Analyze the relative accuracy test audit 

data from the reference method tests for SO2

and CO2 emissions concentration monitors, 

CO2 or O2 monitors used for heat input rate 

determination, NOX concentration 

monitoring systems used to determine NOX

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33418 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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: 

d

n

d avg i

i

n

=

=

∑

1

1

(Eq. A-7)

Where: 

davg = Arithmetic mean of the differences 

n = Number of data points (test runs) 

di

i

n

=

∑ =

1

Algebraic sum of the individual

differences di

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 ≤ 250 

ppm or average NOX emission rate ≤ 0.200 lb/ 

mmBtu) meets the normal 10.0 percent 

relative accuracy specification (as calculated 

using Equation A–10) or the alternate relative 

accuracy specification in section 3.3 of this 

appendix for low-emitters, but fails the bias 

test, the BAF may either be determined using 

Equation A–12, or a default BAF of 1.111 

may be used. 

* * * * * 

(f) Use the bias-adjusted values in 

computing substitution values in the missing 

data procedure, as specified in subpart D of 

this part, and in reporting the concentration 

of SO2, the flow rate, the average NOX

emission rate, the unit heat input, and the 

calculated mass emissions of SO2 and CO2

during the quarter and calendar year, as 

specified in subpart G of this part. In 

addition, when using a NOX concentration 

monitoring system and a flow monitor to 

calculate NOX mass emissions under subpart 

H of this part, use bias-adjusted values for 

NOX concentration and flow rate in the mass 

emission calculations and use bias-adjusted 

NOX concentrations to compute the 

appropriate substitution values for NOX

concentration in the missing data routines 

under subpart D of this part. 

* * * * * 

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 § 75.74(c)(2)(ii) 

and to the semiannual and annual RATAs 

described in section 2.3 of this appendix. 

* * * * * 

2. Frequency of Testing 

* * * * * 

2.1.4 Data Validation 

(a) An out-of-control period occurs when 

the calibration error of an SO2 or NOX

pollutant concentration monitor exceeds 5.0 

percent of the span value, when the 

calibration error of a CO2 or O2 monitor 

(including O2 monitors used to measure CO2

emissions or percent moisture) exceeds 1.0 

percent O2 or CO2, or when the calibration 

error of a flow monitor exceeds 6.0 percent 

of the span value, which is twice the 

applicable specification of appendix A to this 

part. Notwithstanding, a differential 

pressure-type flow monitor for which the 

calibration error exceeds 6.0 percent of the 

span value shall not be considered out-ofcontrol if |R– A|, the absolute value of the 

difference between the monitor response and 

the reference value in Equation A–6 of 

appendix A to this part, is < 0.02 inches of 

water. In addition, an SO2 or NOX monitor 

for which the calibration error exceeds 5.0 

percent of the span value shall not be 

considered out-of-control if |R- A| in Equation 

A–6 does not exceed 5.0 ppm (for span 

values ≤ 50 ppm), or if |R- A| does not exceed 

10.0 ppm (for span values > 50 ppm, but ≤ 

200 ppm). The out-of-control period begins 

upon failure of the calibration error test and 

ends upon completion of a successful 

calibration error test. Note, that if a failed 

calibration, corrective action, and successful 

calibration error test occur within the same 

hour, emission data for that hour recorded by 

the monitor after the successful calibration 

error test may be used for reporting purposes, 

provided that two or more valid readings are 

obtained as required by § 75.10. A NOXdiluent CEMS is considered out-of-control if 

the calibration error of either component 

monitor exceeds twice the applicable 

performance specification in appendix A to 

this part. Emission data shall not be reported 

from an out-of-control monitor. 

* * * * * 

(c) The results of any certification, 

recertification, diagnostic, or quality 

assurance test required under this part may 

not be used to validate the emissions data 

required under this part, if the test is 

performed using EPA Protocol gas from a 

production site that is not participating in the 

PGVP, except as provided in § 75.21(g)(6) and 

(7) or if the cylinder(s) are analyzed by an 

independent laboratory and shown to meet 

the requirements of section 5.1.4(b) of 

appendix A to this part. 

* * * * * 

2.2.1 Linearity Check 

Unless a particular monitor (or monitoring 

range) is exempted under this paragraph or 

under section 6.2 of appendix A to this part, 

perform a linearity check, in accordance with 

the procedures in section 6.2 of appendix A 

to this part, for each primary and redundant 

backup SO2, and NOx pollutant 

concentration monitor and each primary and 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11JN10.000</MATH> EP11JN10.001</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 § 72.2 of this 

chapter. For units using both a low and high 

span value, a linearity check is required only 

on the range(s) used to record and report 

emission data during the QA operating 

quarter. Conduct the linearity checks no less 

than 30 days apart, to the extent practicable. 

The data validation procedures in section 

2.2.3(e) of this appendix shall be followed. 

* * * * * 

2.2.3 Data Validation 

* * * * * 

(i) The results of any certification, 

recertification, diagnostic, or quality 

assurance test required under this part may 

not be used to validate the emissions data 

required under this part, if the test is 

performed using EPA Protocol gas from a 

production site that is not participating in the 

PGVP, except as provided in § 75.21(g)(6) and 

(7) or if the cylinder(s) are analyzed by an 

independent laboratory and shown to meet 

the requirements of section 5.1.4(b) of 

appendix A to this part. 

* * * * * 

2.3.1.1 Standard RATA Frequencies 

(a) Except as otherwise specified in 

§ 75.21(a)(6) or (a)(7) or in section 2.3.1.2 of 

this appendix, perform relative accuracy test 

audits semiannually, i.e., once every two 

successive QA operating quarters (as defined 

in § 72.2 of this chapter) for each primary and 

redundant backup SO2 pollutant 

concentration monitor, flow monitor, CO2

emissions concentration monitor (including 

O2 monitors used to determine CO2

emissions), CO2 or O2 diluent monitor used 

to determine heat input, moisture monitoring 

system, NOX concentration monitoring 

system, or NOX-diluent CEMS. A calendar 

quarter that does not qualify as a QA 

operating quarter shall be excluded in 

determining the deadline for the next RATA. 

No more than eight successive calendar 

quarters shall elapse after the quarter in 

which a RATA was last performed without 

a subsequent RATA having been conducted. 

If a RATA has not been completed by the end 

of the eighth calendar quarter since the 

quarter of the last RATA, then the RATA 

must be completed within a 720 unit (or 

stack) operating hour grace period (as 

provided in section 2.3.3 of this appendix) 

following the end of the eighth successive 

elapsed calendar quarter, or data from the 

CEMS will become invalid. 

* * * * * 

2.3.1.3 RATA Load (or Operating) Levels 

and Additional RATA Requirements 

(a) For SO2 pollutant concentration 

monitors, CO2 emissions concentration 

monitors (including O2 monitors used to 

determine CO2 emissions), CO2 or O2 diluent 

monitors used to determine heat input, NOX

concentration monitoring systems, and NOXdiluent monitoring systems, the required 

semiannual or annual RATA tests shall be 

done at the load level (or operating level) 

designated as normal under section 6.5.2.1(d) 

of appendix A to this part. If two load levels 

(or operating levels) are designated as 

normal, the required RATA(s) may be done 

at either load level (or operating level). 

* * * * * 

2.3.2 Data Validation 

* * * * * 

(d) For single-load (or single-level) RATAs, 

if a daily calibration error test is failed during 

a RATA test period, prior to completing the 

test, the RATA must be repeated. Data from 

the monitor are invalidated prospectively 

from the hour of the failed calibration error 

test until the hour of completion of a 

subsequent successful calibration error test. 

The subsequent RATA shall not be 

commenced until the monitor has 

successfully passed a calibration error test in 

accordance with section 2.1.3 of this 

appendix. For multiple-load (or multiplelevel) flow RATAs, each load level (or 

operating level) is treated as a separate RATA 

(i.e., when a calibration error test is failed 

prior to completing the RATA at a particular 

load level (or operating level), only the RATA 

at that load level (or operating level) must be 

repeated; the results of any previously-passed 

RATA(s) at the other load level(s) (or 

operating level(s)) are unaffected, unless the 

monitor’s polynomial coefficients or Kfactor(s) must be changed to correct the 

problem that caused the calibration failure, 

in which case a subsequent 3-load (or 3-level) 

RATA is required), except as otherwise 

provided in section 2.3.1.3 (c)(5) of this 

appendix. 

* * * * * 

(i) Each time that a hands-off RATA of an 

SO2 pollutant concentration monitor, a 

NOX-diluent monitoring system, a NOX

concentration monitoring system, or a flow 

monitor is passed, perform a bias test in 

accordance with section 7.6.4 of appendix A 

to this part. Apply the appropriate bias 

adjustment factor to the reported SO2, NOX, 

or flow rate data, in accordance with section 

7.6.5 of appendix A to this part. 

* * * * * 

(k) The results of any certification, 

recertification, diagnostic, or quality 

assurance test required under this part may 

not be used to validate the emissions data 

required under this part, if the test is 

performed using EPA Protocol gas from a 

production site that is not participating in the 

PGVP, except as provided in § 75.21(g)(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

Test 

Basic QA test frequency requirements 

Daily * Quarterly * 

Semiannual 

or 

annual

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

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

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

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

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

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

RATA (flow) 1, 2 ............................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ X 

*‘‘Daily’’ means operating days, only. ‘‘Quarterly’’ means once every QA operating quarter. ‘‘Semiannual’’ means once every two QA operating 

quarters. ‘‘Annual’’ means once every four QA operating quarters. 1 Conduct RATA annually (i.e., once every four QA operating quarters) rather than semiannually, if monitor meets accuracy requirements to 

qualify for less frequent testing. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33420 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

2For flow monitors installed on peaking units, bypass stacks, or units that qualify for single-level RATA testing under section 6.5.2(e) of this 

part, conduct all RATAs at a single, normal load (or operating level). For other flow monitors, conduct annual RATAs at two load levels (or operating levels). Alternating single-load and 2-load (or single-level and 2-level) RATAs may be done if a monitor is on a semiannual frequency. A 

single-load (or single-level) RATA may be done in lieu of a 2-load (or 2-level) RATA if, since the last annual flow RATA, the unit has operated at 

one load level (or operating level) for ≥ 85.0 percent of the time. A 3-level RATA is required at least once every five years (20 calendar quarters) 

and whenever a flow monitor is re-characterized, except for flow monitors exempted from 3-level RATA testing under section 6.5.2(b) or 6.5.2(e) 

of appendix A to this part. 

FIGURE 2 TO APPENDIX B OF PART 75—RELATIVE ACCURACY TEST FREQUENCY INCENTIVE SYSTEM

RATA Semiannual W Annual W

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

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

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

CO2 or O2 ...................................... 7.5% < RA ≤ 10.0% or ± 1.0% CO2/O2 X ............................................. RA ≤ 7.5% or ± 0.7% CO2/O2 X. 

Moisture ......................................... 7.5% < RA ≤ 10.0% or ± 1.5% H2O X .................................................. RA ≤ 7.5% or ± 1.0% H2O X. 

W The deadline for the next RATA is the end of the second (if semiannual) or fourth (if annual) successive QA operating quarter following the 

quarter in which the CEMS was last tested. Exclude calendar quarters with fewer than 168 unit operating hours (or, for common stacks and bypass stacks, exclude quarters with fewer than 168 stack operating hours) in determining the RATA deadline. For SO2 monitors, QA operating 

quarters in which only very low sulfur fuel as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter, is combusted may also be excluded. However, the exclusion of 

calendar quarters is limited as follows: the deadline for the next RATA shall be no more than 8 calendar quarters after the quarter in which a 

RATA was last performed. A 720 operating hour grace period is available if the RATA cannot be completed by the deadline. X The difference between monitor and reference method mean values applies to moisture monitors, CO2, and O2 monitors, low emitters of SO2, 

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

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] 

Specialty gas company name 

EPA protocol gas 

production 

site name 

Vendor 

ID 

Stamped 

cylinder 

ID 

Gas Component, e.g., SO2

Supplied 

complete 

documentation 

(yes/no) 

Tag 

value 

(e.g., 

ppm 

SO2) 

Audit Results Vendor analytical method 

(e.g., FTIR) 

Vendor 

ref 

std used 

(e.g., 

NTRM) 

Orig tag 

value 

(pass/fail) 

Orig 

tag 

(% diff) 

Re-analyzed 

value 

(pass/fail) 

Re-analysis 

(% diff) 

A gaseous component is said to fail only if all available analytical techniques used in the audit indicate greater than a 2.0% difference from the cylinder tag value. 

Any accuracy assessment is an instantaneous snapshot of the process being measured. These results should not be regarded as a final statement on the accuracy 

of EPA Protocol gases. They can be used as an indicator of the current status of the accuracy of EPA Protocol gases as a whole. However, individual results should 

not be taken as definitive indicators of the analytical capabilities of individual producers. EPA presents this information without assigning a rating to the gas vendors, 

for example, who is the best, who is approved, or is not approved. 

% diff = 100 × (Tag Value ¥ NIST Value)/NIST Value 

Note: For cylinders with more than one component plus balance gas, change the title appropriately, e.g., ‘‘FIGURE 3 TO APPENDIX B OF PART 75—BI-BLEND 

PLUS BALANCE GAS CYLINDERS * * * ’’ and add appropriate columns to Figure 3 for the additional components following the same format used in the columns for 

SO2 above. 

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 GasFired Peaking Units and Oil-Fired 

Peaking Units 

* * * * * 

2.1 Initial Performance Testing 

* * * The requirements in section 6.1.2 of 

appendix A to this part shall apply to any 

stack testing performed to obtain O2 and NOX

concentration measurements under this 

appendix, either for units using the excepted 

methodology in this appendix or for units 

using the low mass emissions excepted 

methodology in § 75.19. 

* * * * * 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2