Rule: Revisions To The Continuous Emissions Monitoring Rule For The Acid Rain Program, NOx Budget Trading Program, Clean Air Interstate Rule, and The Clean Air Me

Thursday,
January 24, 2008
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 72 and 75
Revisions to the Continuous Emissions
Monitoring Rule for the Acid Rain
Program, NOX Budget Trading Program,
Clean Air Interstate Rule, and the Clean
Air Mercury Rule; Final Rule
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 21:39 Jan 23, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\24JAR2.SGM 24JAR2
4312 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION incorporated by reference. These Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
AGENCY revisions do not impose significant new telephone number for the Public
requirements upon sources with regard Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and
40 CFR Parts 72 and 75 to monitoring or quality assurance the telephone number for the Air and
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0132; FRL–8511–1] activities. Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742.
RIN 2060–AN16 DATES: This final rule is effective on FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
January 24, 2008, for good cause found Matthew Boze, Clean Air Markets
Revisions to the Continuous as explained in this rule. Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Emissions Monitoring Rule for the The incorporation by reference of Agency, Clean Air Markets Division, MC
Acid Rain Program, NOX Budget certain publications listed in the rule is 6204J, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Trading Program, Clean Air Interstate approved by the Director of the Federal Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
Rule, and the Clean Air Mercury Rule Register as of January 24, 2008, for good DC 20460, telephone (202) 343–9211, e-
cause found as explained in this rule. mail at boze.matthew@epa.gov.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a Electronic copies of this document can
Agency (EPA).
docket for this action under Docket ID be accessed through the EPA Web site
ACTION: Final rule.
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0132. All at: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets.
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing rule documents in the docket are listed in
revisions that modify existing the www.regulations.gov index. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated
requirements for sources affected by the Although listed in the index, some Entities. Entities regulated by this action
federally administered emission trading information is not publicly available, primarily are fossil fuel-fired boilers,
programs including the NOX Budget e.g., CBI or other information whose turbines, and combined cycle units that
Trading Program, the Acid Rain disclosure is restricted by statute. serve generators that produce electricity,
Program, the Clean Air Interstate Rule, Certain other material, such as generate steam, or cogenerate electricity
and the Clean Air Mercury Rule. copyrighted material, will be publicly and steam. Some trading programs
The revisions are prompted primarily available only in hard copy. Publicly include process sources, such as process
by changes being implemented by EPA’s available docket materials are available heaters or cement kilns. Although Part
Clean Air Markets Division in its data either electronically in 75 primarily regulates the electric utility
systems in order to utilize the latest www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at industry, certain State and Federal NOX
modern technology for the submittal of the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, mass emission trading programs rely on
data by affected sources. Other revisions EPA West Building, EPA Headquarters subpart H of Part 75, and those
address issues that have been raised Library, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution programs may include boilers, turbines,
during program implementation, fix Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The combined cycle, and certain process
specific inconsistencies in rule Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 units from other industries. Regulated
provisions, or update sources a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through categories and entities include:
Category NAICS code Examples of potentially regulated industries
Industry ................................ 221112 and others ............. Electric service providers Process sources with large boilers, turbines, combined
cycle units, process heaters, or cement kilns where emissions exhaust through a
stack.
This table is not intended to be of the rule will be posted on the TTN’s reconsideration if the petitioner
exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide policy and guidance page for newly demonstrates that it was impracticable
for readers regarding entities likely to be proposed or promulgated rules at to raise an objection during the public
regulated by this action. This table lists http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN comment period or if the grounds for
the types of entities which EPA is now provides information and technology such objection arose after the comment
aware could potentially be regulated by exchange in various areas of air period (but within the time for judicial
this action. Other types of entities not pollution control. review) and if the objection is of central
listed in this table could also be Judicial Review. Under CAA section relevance to the rule. Any person
regulated. To determine whether your 307(b), judicial review of this final seeking to make such a demonstration to
facility, company, business, action is available only by filing a EPA should submit a Petition for
organization, etc., is regulated by this petition for review in the U.S. Court of Reconsideration, clearly labeled as such,
action, you should carefully examine Appeals for the District of Columbia to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
the applicability provisions in §§ 72.6, Circuit on or before March 24, 2008. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building,
72.7, and 72.8 of title 40 of the Code of Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington,
Federal Regulations and in 40 CFR Parts those objections to the final rule that DC 20460, with a copy to the Associate
96 and 97. If you have questions were raised with specificity during the General Counsel for the Air and
regarding the applicability of this action period for public comment may be Radiation Law Office, Office of General
to a particular entity, consult the person raised during judicial review. Moreover, Counsel, Mail Code 2344A, U.S. EPA,
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
INFORMATION CONTACT section. requirements established by today’s Washington, DC 20460.
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition final rule may not be challenged
to being available in the docket, an separately in any civil or criminal Outline

electronic copy of the final rule is also proceedings brought by EPA to enforce I. Detailed Discussion of Rule Revisions
available on the WWW through the these requirements. Section 307(d)(7)(B) A. Rule Definitions
Technology Transfer Network Web site also provides a mechanism for the EPA B. General Monitoring Provisions
(TTN Web). Following signature, a copy to convene a proceeding for C. Certification Requirements
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 4313
D. Missing Data Substitution should be used. All sources will be test teams, equipment, and vendor
E. Recordkeeping and Reporting required to use the new process support) over the entire course of 2008.
F. Subpart H (NOX Mass Emissions) beginning in 2009. For these reasons, EPA believes it has
G. Subpart I (Hg Mass Emissions) good cause to expedite the effective date
H. Appendix A Therefore, EPA finds good cause to
I. Appendix B determine that the final rule is effective of this final rule.
J. Appendix D on January 24, 2008. EPA normally A. Rule Definitions
K. Appendix E issues final regulations with at least a
L. Appendix F 30-day effective date after Federal Background
M. Appendix G Register publication. However, this EPA proposed to add several new
N. Appendix K provision of the rule which pertains to
O. Other Rule Revisions
definitions to Part 72, including
the re-engineering of the Clean Air definitions for: ‘‘Long-term cold
II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Markets Division’s data systems and to storage’’ (to mean the complete
Planning and Review implementation of the Clean Air shutdown of a unit intended to last for
B. Paperwork Reduction Act Mercury Regulation (CAMR), must be at least two calendar years); ‘‘EPA
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act effective by January 1, 2008. Today’s Protocol Gas Verification Program’’ (to
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act rule allows sources the option of support the proposed calibration gas
E. Executive Order: 13132: Federalism reporting emissions data in the new audit program); ‘‘Air Emission Testing
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation XML data reporting format in 2008, one Body (AETB)’’ and ‘‘Qualified
and Coordination With Indian Tribal year before the use of XML becomes
Governments
Individual’’ (to support the proposed
mandatory. The final rule provides the stack tester accreditation program).
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
necessary record keeping and reporting EPA also proposed to modify the
and Safety Risks requirements to support the XML definitions of ‘‘Capacity factor’’, ‘‘EPA
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That format. Second, sources subject to protocol gas,’’ and ‘‘Excepted
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, CAMR are required to install and certify monitoring system’’, and to remove the
Distribution, or Use continuous mercury (Hg) monitoring definition of ‘‘Calibration gas’’ and
I. National Technology Transfer and systems by January 1, 2009. To meet this related definitions describing the
Advancement Act deadline, companies with multiple various types of gas standards that are
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions CAMR-affected units will begin monitor classified as calibration gas.
To Address Environmental Justice in certification testing in the first quarter of
Minority Populations and Low-Income Summary of Rule Changes
Populations
2008. As described in Sections I.C.3 and
K. Congressional Review Act I.O.3., today’s rule adds two recently- All of the proposed new and modified
L. Petition for Judicial Review published Hg test methods, i.e., definitions have been finalized without
M. Determination Under Section 307(d) Methods 30A and 30B, to Part 75 as substantive changes. However, one
alternatives to the Ontario Hydro commenter cautioned that removing the
I. Detailed Discussion of Rule Revisions Method. For many sources, 30A and definitions of the calibration gas
EPA is in the process of re- 30B will be the test methods of choice. standards from Part 72 might have
engineering the data systems associated Third, as discussed in Section I.A., consequences that could necessitate
with the collection and processing of today’s rule defers until January 1, 2010 further rule revisions. In view of this,
emissions, monitoring plan, quality the requirement for the calibration the Agency reconsidered these proposed
assurance, and certification data. The re- standards used to certify Hg continuous changes and the final rule retains all but
engineering project includes the emission monitoring systems (CEMS) one of the definitions. The definition of
creation of a client tool, provided by under CAMR to be traceable to the ‘‘Research gas material’’ was found to be
EPA that sources will use to evaluate National Institute of Standards and identical to the definition of ‘‘Research
and submit their Part 75 monitoring Technology (NIST). Fourth, for CAMR gas mixture’’ and has been removed
data. This process change will enable units that seek to qualify as low mass from the rule.
sources to assess the quality of their emitting units under § 75.81, Hg Further, for consistency with Method
data prior to submitting the data using emission testing is required in 2008. As 30A, the new instrumental reference
EPA established checking criteria. The discussed in Section G.2., today’s rule method for mercury (Hg) (which, as
process will also allow sources to report adds considerable flexibility to the way noted in sections I.C.3 and I.O.3 of this
their data directly to a database. Having in which this testing is conducted, preamble has been added to the list of
the data in a true database will allow the particularly for common stack acceptable Hg reference methods in
Agency to implement and assess the configurations and groups of identical § 75.22), and in light of other changes in
program more efficiently and will units. The use of Methods 30A and 30B today’s rule related to the certification
streamline access to the data. Also, this for this testing is also desirable. Absent of Hg monitoring systems, EPA is
database structure will enable EPA to this determination of good cause, adding definitions of ‘‘NIST traceable
implement process changes that will sources would not be able to begin elemental Hg standards’’ and ‘‘NIST
reduce the redundant reporting of scheduled monitoring certification traceable source of oxidized Hg’’ to
certain types of data. The re-engineered activities until the necessary provisions § 72.2. These definitions pertain to Hg
systems will be supported by a new of this rule became effective. A thirty calibration gas standards and are
extensible markup language (XML) data day delay would significantly decrease deemed necessary for implementation of
format that will replace the record type/ the overall amount of time available for the continuous monitoring requirements
column format currently used by EPA to industry to comply with the of the Clean Air Mercury Regulation
collect electronic data. EPA intends to certification deadline of January 1, 2009. (CAMR).
transition existing sources to the new Such a delay could result in sources not Affected units under CAMR are
XML electronic data report (XML–EDR) being able to meet the certification required to install and certify Part 75-
format during the 2008 reporting year. deadline, since industry would lose compliant Hg monitoring systems by
For sources reporting in 2008 for the some of its ability to spread utilization January 1, 2009. To meet this
first time, the new XML–EDR format of various certification resources (i.e., requirement, the vast majority of the
certification testing will be performed in traceability requirement for Hg § 72.2. Section 5.1.9 of Appendix A to
2008. When CAMR was first proposed, standards is modeled after the NIST Part 75 has been revised to reflect this.
only one reference test method (the traceability requirements in Section 5 of In view of this, EPA strongly
Ontario Hydro (OH) Method) was Appendix A for SO2, NOX, and diluent recommends that in 2009, all CAMR-
prescribed for the relative accuracy test gas (CO2 and O2) calibration gas affected sources should take the
audits (RATAs) of the required Hg standards. necessary steps to ensure that the NIST
monitoring systems. However, the OH For the SO2, NOX, CO2, and O2 traceability requirement is met. In most
method is wet chemistry-based, and is compressed gas standards used in Part cases, this will involve the certification
both difficult and expensive to perform. 75 applications, ‘‘NIST traceability’’ of elemental and oxidized Hg
Also, the laboratory analysis required to means that the calibration gases have generators, according to the traceability
obtain the test results can take a week been prepared according to the EPA- protocols. If a source elects to perform
or more, making the OH method approved protocol cited in Section 5.1.4 daily calibrations and/or linearity
incompatible with the Hg emissions of Appendix A. Further, § 75.22(c)(1) checks using compressed gas cylinders
trading program described in the CAMR requires NIST-traceable gas standards to instead of an elemental Hg generator,
model rule. be used to calibrate the instrumental the owner or operator will have to
In a cap and trade program, the RATA reference methods used for relative obtain cylinder gases that conform to
results must be known while the test accuracy testing of SO2, NOX, CO2, and the EPA traceability protocol for gaseous
team is still on-site, so that any O2 CEMS (i.e., Methods 6C, 7E and 3A). calibration standards.
necessary corrective actions can be Prior to today’s rulemaking, no NIST Finally, note that EPA is conditionally
taken and retesting performed without traceability protocols for Hg calibration allowing Method 30A to be used for Part
delay. With the OH method, if the standards were referenced in Part 75. 75 Hg emission testing and RATA
results of the lab analysis indicate a The new definitions of ‘‘NIST traceable applications prior to finalization of the
RATA failure, a retest must be elemental Hg standards’’ and ‘‘NIST traceability protocols in section 16.0 of
rescheduled and the Hg monitoring traceable source of oxidized Hg’’ the method. The condition is that
system is considered out-of-control until address this deficiency and cite the EPA interim traceability protocols are
a subsequent RATA is passed. This can protocols that must be followed to developed and posted on the Agency’s
result in an extended missing data ensure that the elemental and oxidized Technology Transfer Network Web site
period and loss of Hg allowances. Hg standards are traceable to NIST. (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/), as
Thus, it became apparent during the However, these protocols, which are ‘‘broadly applicable alternative test
CAMR rulemaking that an alternative to referenced in Section 16.0 of Method method approvals’’ that will expire
the OH method was needed. An 30A, are not yet fully developed, and when the final protocols are issued.
instrumental Hg reference method was are not expected to be ready for use EPA’s authority to approve such test
put forth as the logical choice, because until the latter part of 2008. A method alternatives is described in 72
it would provide real-time Hg cooperative field demonstration FR 4257, January 30, 2007.
concentration data, allowing the RATA program that will include EPA believes that a phased-in
results to be known on the day of the representatives from EPA, NIST, approach to NIST traceability is
test. When CAMR was published on industry, equipment vendors, and other appropriate and necessary, in light of
May 18, 2005, EPA stated its intention key personnel is planned for the coming the additional time needed to finalize
to ‘‘propose and promulgate’’ an months, to gather the data necessary to the traceability protocols and the time
instrumental Hg reference method (see refine and finalize the traceability required for the affected sources and
70 FR 28636). In support of the final protocols. Once these traceability equipment vendors to set up the
CAMR rule, Hg monitoring provisions protocols are finalized, they will be necessary infrastructure to implement
were added to Part 75. Among these was posted on the Agency’s Technology the protocols. The Agency also believes
an amendment to § 75.22, allowing the Transfer Network Web site (http:// that this approach will not compromise
use of either the OH method or an www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/) and on the the quality of the data for the emissions
‘‘instrumental reference method * * * Agency’s Clean Air Markets Division trading program under CAMR, since in
subject to the approval of the Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ 2010, the first year in which Hg
Administrator’’ for the certification airmarkets/). emissions count against allowances
testing of Hg continuous monitoring In view of this, EPA is temporarily held, NIST traceability of the Hg
systems. Method 30A was published on deferring (until January 1, 2010) the calibration standards is mandatory.
September 7, 2007 in a direct-final requirement for elemental and oxidized
rulemaking, and became effective on Hg standards to be NIST traceable. The B. General Monitoring Provisions
November 6, 2007 (see 72 FR 51494). deferral affects both initial certifications 1. Update of Incorporation by Reference
Method 30A represents the fulfillment of the CEMS and routine quality- (§ 75.6)
of the Agency’s commitment to publish assurance tests of the CEMS performed
an instrumental reference method for prior to January 1, 2010. Note that only Background
Hg. the NIST traceability requirement for Section 75.6 identifies a number of
One of the most important Part 75 the Hg calibration standards is being methods and other standards that are
requirements for the certification of Hg waived, not the requirement to perform incorporated by reference into Part 75.
continuous emission monitoring the calibration error tests, linearity This section includes standards
systems (CEMS) is that the checks, and system integrity checks of published by the American Society for
concentrations of the elemental and the Hg monitoring systems by January 1, Testing and Materials (ASTM), the
oxidized Hg calibration gas standards 2009. American Society of Mechanical
used for the 7-day calibration error tests, Beginning on January 1, 2010, all Engineers (ASME), the American
linearity checks, and system integrity daily calibration error tests, linearity National Standards Institute (ANSI), the
checks of the CEMS must be traceable checks, and system integrity checks of Gas Processors Association (GPA), and
to the National Institute of Standards Hg CEMS must be performed using the American Petroleum Institute (API).
and Technology (NIST) (see Part 75, NIST traceable elemental and oxidized EPA proposed changes to § 75.6 that
Appendix A, Section 5.1.9). This NIST Hg calibration standards, as defined in would reflect the need to incorporate
recent updates for many of the assured under a State CEMS program. 3. Default Moisture Value for Natural
referenced standards. The proposed Lastly, the Agency proposed technical Gas
revisions would recognize or adhere to revisions to the Equations LM–5 and
Background
these newer standards by updating LM–6 changing the units of rate to units
references for the standards listed in of measure to make the equations EPA proposed to allow gas-fired
§§ 75.6(a) through 75.6(f). Additionally, correct as units of rate cannot boilers equipped with CEMS to use
new §§ 75.6(a)(45) through 75.6(a)(48) technically be summed. default moisture values in lieu of
and 75.6(f)(4) would incorporate by Summary of Rule Changes continuously monitoring the stack gas
reference additional ASTM and API moisture content. Two conservative
standards that are relevant to Part 75 Commenters were generally
supportive of the proposed revisions to default values were proposed: 14.0%
implementation.
§ 75.19, and they have been finalized H2O under § 75.11(b), and 18.0% H2O
Summary of Rule Changes with only one substantive change. EPA under § 75.12(b). The Agency also
The updates and additions to § 75.6 has incorporated one commenter’s proposed that the higher default value
have been finalized as proposed. One suggestion not to restrict the allowable would apply only when Equation 19–3,
commenter requested that an additional fuel oil sampling options to those 19–4, or 19–8 (from Method 19 in
ASTM method for analyzing the sulfur described in Appendix D. The final rule appendix A–7 to part 60 of this chapter)
content of low-sulfur fuel oil, i.e., allows the use of other consensus is used to determine the NOX emission
ASTM D5453–06, ‘‘Standard Test standard fuel sampling methods (e.g., rate. The proposed default values
Method for Determination of Total ASTM, API, etc.) specified in applicable represent the 10th and 90th percentile
Sulfur in Light Hydrocarbons, Spark State or Federal regulations or in the values from two sets of supplemental
Ignition Engine Fuel, Diesel Engine unit’s operating permit, to determine the moisture data provided to the Agency,
Fuel, and Engine Oil by Ultraviolet sulfur content of the oil. which is consistent with the approach
Fluorescence’’, be added to the list of Another commenter requested that that the Agency has used in responding
acceptable methods in § 75.6. This EPA go beyond its proposal for SO2 and to past petitions under § 75.66 for site-
method has been incorporated by consider providing a similar, more specific default moisture values.
reference as § 75.6(a)(49) and has been reasonable site-specific alternative to
added to section 2.2.5 of Appendix D. reporting the generic NOX emission Summary of Rule Changes
rates in Table LM–2. Specifically, the
2. Default Emission Rates for Low Mass commenter suggested that for units with No adverse comments were received
Emissions (LME) Units very low annual capacity factors, the on these proposed rule changes and
Agency should waive the testing they have been finalized.
Background
requirements of §§ 75.19(c)(1)(iv) and 4. Expanded Use of Equation F–23
EPA proposed to allow LME units to allow emission test data that was
use site-specific default SO2 emission generated more than 5 years ago (e.g., Background
rates for fuel oil combustion, in lieu of from a Part 60 performance test) to be
using the ‘‘generic’’ default SO2 used to determine fuel-specific default EPA proposed to revise § 75.11(e)(1)
emission rates specified in Table LM–1 NOX emission rates. The commenter to remove the current restrictions on the
of § 75.19. To use this option, a federally asserted that the cost of additional use of Equation F–23 to determine the
enforceable permit condition would testing could impose a financial burden SO2 mass emission rate, by allowing
have to be in place for the unit, limiting on smaller affected sources. After Equation F–23 to be used whether or not
the sulfur content of the oil. This careful consideration, EPA decided the unit has an SO2 monitor and to
revision, if made, would allow more against allowing infrequently-operated expand its use to fuels other than
representative, yet still conservatively units to use emission test data older natural gas. The proposal would allow
high, SO2 emissions data to be reported than 5 years for Part 75 reporting. Equation F–23 to be used for any
from oil-burning LME units. As However, § 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(I) has been gaseous fuel that qualifies for a default
proposed, the site-specific default SO2 amended to provide reduced emission SO2 emission rate under Section 2.3.6(b)
emission rate would be calculated using testing requirements for very low of Appendix D. Further, Equation F–23
an equation from EPA publication AP– capacity factor LME units. The final rule could be used for the combustion of
42. The sulfur content used in the allows single-load testing, between 75 liquid and solid fuels that meet the
calculations would be the maximum and 100 percent of maximum load, to be definition of ‘‘very low sulfur fuel’’ in
weight percent sulfur allowed by the performed (both for the initial Appendix § 72.2, if a petition for a fuel-specific
federally-enforceable permit. Sources E testing and for retests) if, for the 3 default SO2 emission rate is submitted
choosing to implement this option years prior to the year of the test, the to the Administrator under § 75.66 and
would be required to perform periodic unit’s average capacity factor was 2.5 the Administrator approves the petition.
oil sampling using one of the four percent or less and did not exceed 4.0 Under the proposed rule, petitions
methodologies described in Section 2.2 percent in any of those three years.
would also be accepted for the
of Appendix D to Part 75, and would be Alternatively, for combustion turbines,
combustion of mixtures of these fuels
required to keep records documenting the emission test may be done at the
and for the co-firing of these fuels with
the sulfur content of the fuel. maximum attainable load corresponding
gaseous fuel.
The Agency also proposed to revise to the season of the year in which the
§ 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(G) to clarify that fuel- test is performed. For a group of Summary of Rule Changes
and-unit-specific default NOX emission identical units, the single-load testing
rates for LME units may be determined option may be used for any unit(s) in Commenters were supportive of the
using data from a Continuous Emissions the group that meet the very low expanded use of Equation F–23 and the
Monitoring System (CEMS) that has capacity factor requirements. For a more revisions to § 75.11(e) and
been quality-assured according to either detailed discussion of this issue, refer to corresponding changes to section 7 of
Appendix B of Part 75 or Appendix F section 2.3.2 of the Response to Appendix F have been finalized as
of Part 60, or comparably quality- Comments (RTC) document. proposed.
5. Calculation of NOX Emission Rate— controls are not bypassed and are emission testing and RATAs. Three new
LME Units documented to be operating properly. testing options that were added to the
Background For example, for a coal-fired unit methods were deemed unacceptable for
equipped with FGD and SCR add-on use under Part 75. These include:
EPA proposed to re-title emission controls, if the SCR is (1) Section 7.1 of revised EPA Method
§ 75.19(c)(4)(ii) as ‘‘NOX mass emissions documented to be working during an 7E, allowing for custom calibration gas
and NOX emission rate’’ and to add a FGD malfunction and the effluent gases concentrations to be produced by
new subparagraph (D) to § 75.19 are routed through an unmonitored diluting EPA protocol gases, in
(c)(4)(ii), providing instructions for bypass stack after passing through the accordance with Method 205 in
determining quarterly and cumulative SCR, then the MCR, rather than the Appendix M of 40 CFR Part 51.
NOX emission rates for a LME unit. The MER, would be the more appropriate (2) Section 8.4 of revised EPA Method
NOX emission rate for each hour (lb/ NOX emission rate to report for the 7E, allowing the use of a multi-hole
mmBtu) would simply be the bypass hour(s). Documentation of ‘‘rake’’ probe to satisfy the multipoint
appropriate generic or unit-specific proper add-on control operation for traverse requirement of the method.
default NOX emission rate defined in such hours of operation would be (3) Section 8.6 of revised EPA Method
the monitoring plan for the type of fuel required as described in § 75.34(d). The 7E, allowing for the use of ‘‘dynamic
being combusted and (if applicable) the MCR would be calculated in a manner spiking’’ as an alternative to the
NOX emission control status. Then, the similar to the calculation of the MER, interference and system bias checks of
Agency proposed that the quarterly NOX except that the maximum expected NOX the method.
emission rate would be determined by concentration (MEC) would be used Although revised Method 7E states
averaging all of the hourly NOX instead of the maximum potential NOX that for use under Part 75 the three
emission rates and the cumulative (year- concentration (MPC). options above require approval by the
to-date) NOX emission rate would be the Administrator, EPA proposed to add
Summary of Rule Changes similar language to § 75.22(a)(5) to
arithmetic average of the quarterly
values. Commenters were generally reinforce its position regarding these
supportive of the proposed rule changes testing alternatives.
Summary of Rule Changes and they have been finalized. One Summary of Rule Changes
No adverse comments were received commenter recommended that parallel
on these proposed rule changes and the language be added to § 75.72(c)(3), to No adverse comments were received
revisions to § 75.19(c)(4)(ii) have been cover non-Acid Rain Program units that on the proposed amendments to
finalized as proposed. are subject to the NOX mass emissions § 75.22(a)(5) and they have been
monitoring provisions of Subpart H. finalized. However, one commenter
6. LME Units—Scope of Applicability EPA agrees with this comment and has brought to EPA’s attention another
Background added the necessary language to revision to the Part 60 reference
§ 75.72(c)(3). methods that impacts Part 75. EPA
EPA proposed to revise § 75.19(a)(1) Method 20 was also revised on May 15,
to clarify that the low mass emissions C. Certification Requirements 2006. Method 20 has been the NOX
(LME) methodology is a stand-alone emission test method prescribed for
1. Alternative Monitoring System
alternative to a CEMS and/or the combustion turbines (CTs) in section
Certification
‘‘excepted’’ monitoring methodologies 2.1.2.2 of Appendix E. Method 20 has
in Appendices D, E, and G. In other Background also been used to determine fuel-
words, if a unit qualifies for LME status, EPA proposed to delete §§ 75.20(f)(1) specific NOX emission rates for
the owner or operator is required either and (2) from the rule, thereby removing combustion turbines that qualify as low
to use the LME methodology for all the requirement for the Administrator to mass emissions (LME) units under
parameters or not to use the method at publish each request for certification of § 75.19.
all. No mixing-and-matching of other an alternative monitoring system in the The original Method 20 required
monitoring methodologies with LME is Federal Register, with an associated 60- testing at 8 sampling points per run,
permitted. Parallel revisions to day public comment period. This rule with typical run times averaging about
§§ 75.11(d)(3), 75.12(e)(3), and provision is considered unnecessary, in 15 to 20 minutes. However, the revised
75.13(d)(3), consistent with the changes view of the Agency’s authority under Method 20 no longer specifies the
to § 75.19(a)(1), were also proposed to Subpart E to approve alternative minimum number of test points per run,
clarify the Agency’s intent. monitoring systems and the rigorous but rather requires sampling point
Summary of Rule Changes requirements in §§ 75.40 through 75.48 selection to be done according to
that alternative monitoring systems Method 7E. Revised Method 7E requires
No adverse comments were received must meet in order to be certified. 12 traverse points for an emission test
on the proposed changes and they have run (which would suffice for Appendix
been finalized. Summary of Rule Changes
E testing), but the method also allows
7. Use of Maximum Controlled NOX Commenters were supportive of the the results of stratification testing to be
Emission Rate When Using Bypass proposed amendments to § 75.20(f), and used to justify using three or, in some
Stacks they have been finalized. cases, one sample point instead. This
2. Part 60 Reference Test Methods raises questions about the required
Background length of an Appendix E test run. For
Revisions to § 75.17(d)(2) were Background instance, if testing were required at only
proposed that would allow a maximum On May 15, 2006, EPA promulgated one point, each Appendix E test run
controlled NOX emission rate (MCR) to final revisions to EPA reference test would be reduced from 15–20 minutes
be reported instead of the maximum methods 6C, 7E, and 3A, which are to as little as 2 minutes (depending on
potential NOX emission rate (MER) found in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60. the system response time). The
whenever an unmonitored bypass stack (See 71 FR 28082, May 15, 2006). These commenter stated that such short
is used, provided that the add-on test methods are prescribed for Part 75 sampling runs seem inadequate to
develop a substantial correlation curve paired OH trains, as specified in trains for the OH method was made
for emission reporting. The commenter Performance Specification 12A in during the rulemaking that led to
recommended that EPA modify Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 60. publication of the Clean Air Mercury
Appendix E or Method 20 and either set EPA also proposed amendments to Regulation (CAMR) (see 70 FR 28636–
a minimum run time of 20 minutes §§ 75.22(a)(7), 75.59(a)(7), 75.81(c)(1), 28639, May 18, 2005).
(providing an hour of data at each load) and to sections 6.5.10 and 7.6.1 of Two commenters supported the
or specify a minimum number of Appendix A, allowing EPA Method 29 proposed 20 percent alternative RD
sampling points for an Appendix E test (back-half impinger catch, only) to be specification for low emitters, and that
of a CT. used as an alternative to the OH provision has been finalized. However,
EPA has incorporated the method, both for RATA testing and for one of the commenters noted that even
commenter’s recommendations into Part periodic emission testing of units with a 20 percent RD specification may be
75. First, § 75.22(a)(5) has been low Hg mass emissions (≤29 lb/yr). Two too stringent for extremely low Hg
amended to prohibit the use of Method caveats on the use of Method 29 were concentrations. EPA agrees that when
7E to determine the required number of proposed. First, sources electing to use Hg concentrations are exceptionally low
sample points for the emission testing of Method 29 (which is similar to the OH (0.1 µg/m3 or less), the 20 percent RD
a combustion turbine. Section method, but somewhat simpler and specification may be difficult to meet.
75.22(a)(5)(ii) requires the sample points more familiar to stack testers) would be Therefore, the final rule adds a third tier
to be determined according to section required to use paired sampling trains to the RD specifications in § 75.22. The
2.1.2.2 of Appendix E, instead. Second, (i.e., two trains sampling the source paired train agreement is also
for the emission test of a CT, section effluent simultaneously), and the RD considered to be acceptable if the
2.1.2.2 of Appendix E has been revised specifications in § 75.22(a)(7) would absolute difference between the two
to require a minimum of 12 test points have to be met for each run. Second, measured Hg concentrations does not
per run, located according to EPA certain analytical and quality assurance exceed 0.03 µg/m3.
Method 1. Third, amendments have (QA) procedures in the OH method Several commenters strongly
been made to § 75.22(a)(6), (ASTM D6784–02) would have to be supported the proposal to allow the use
§ 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(A), section 6.5.10 of followed instead of the corresponding of a sorbent-based reference method for
Appendix A, and sections 2.1.2.2 and procedures in Method 29 (because the Hg emission testing and for the RATAs
2.1.2.3 of Appendix E, to remove all analytical and quality assurance/quality of Hg monitoring systems. Since
references to EPA Method 20 from Part control (QA/QC) requirements of the OH publication of the proposed rule, a great
75. Fourth, for the testing of an method are more detailed and rigorous deal of progress has been made in this
Appendix E boiler, the text of section than those in Method 29), and testers area. First, EPA conducted a Method
2.1.2.1 of Appendix E has been revised could opt to follow several of the 301 analysis of available data comparing
to require 12 traverse points per run, sample recovery and preparation sorbent trap sampling to the OH
making it consistent with revised procedures in the OH method instead of method. The results of this analysis
section 2.1.2.2 (note that this is not a the Method 29 procedures. showed that a sorbent-based sampling
new requirement—section 2.1.2.1 has Finally, the Agency solicited method can be a viable alternative
always required 12 test points, located comment on the use of sorbent traps for reference method. Second, EPA drafted
reference method testing. Members of ‘‘Method 30B’’, a reference method that
according to section 8.3.1 of Method 3,
the regulated community had expressed uses iodated carbon traps to measure
and that section refers back to Method
an interest in using portable sorbent trap vapor phase Hg emissions. Finally, as
1). Finally, in section 2.1.2.3 of
monitoring systems for Hg reference part of a direct final rulemaking,
Appendix E, the references to the
method testing, as an alternative to the Method 30B was published on
measurement system response time in
OH method. EPA proposed to September 7, 2007 (see 72 FR 51494–
section 5.5 of Method 20 (which section
accommodate a possible future sorbent- 51531), along with Method 30A, an
no longer exists) have been replaced
based reference method by adding instrumental Hg reference method.
with references to the response time
language to § 75.22(a)(7) that would Today’s final rule allows both Methods
provisions in sections 8.2.5 and 8.2.6 of
allow an ‘‘other suitable’’ reference 30A and 30B to be used.
Method 7E. Appendix E tests performed
method approved by the Administrator
on CTs prior to the effective date of D. Missing Data Substitution
to be used for Hg emission testing and
these amendments are grandfathered
RATAs. 1. Block Versus Step-Wise Approach
from the revised test point location
requirements. Summary of Rule Changes Background
3. Mercury Reference Methods Commenters were generally Historically, EPA’s policy has
supportive of the proposed amendments required sources to use a ‘‘block’’
Background that would add Method 29 as an approach for CEMS missing data
EPA proposed to add an alternative alternative Hg reference method, and substitution. The percent monitor data
relative deviation (RD) specification for those provisions have been finalized availability (PMA) at the end of the
the results of mercury (Hg) emission without substantive change. One missing data period has been used to
data collected with paired Ontario commenter objected to the requirement determine which mathematical
Hydro (OH) reference method sampling to use paired sampling trains for OH algorithm applies, and the substitute
trains. The principal RD specification in and Method 29 tests, asserting that this data value or values prescribed by that
§ 75.22(a)(7) is 10 percent. However, adds to the cost of testing and may one algorithm have been reported for
this acceptance criterion may be too result in significant numbers of test runs each hour of the missing data period.
stringent for sources with low Hg being discarded. However, EPA does not However, EPA has recently
emissions. Therefore, for average Hg agree with the commenter. The Agency reconsidered and revised its missing
concentrations of 1.0 µg/m3 or less, EPA believes rather that paired sampling substitution data policy, to allow
proposed an alternative RD specification trains provide added assurance of data sources to apply the missing data
of 20 percent. This is consistent with quality when these test methods are algorithms in a stepwise manner instead
the acceptance criteria for data from used. The decision to require paired of using the block approach. Under the
stepwise methodology, the various period. The proposed revisions would provisions to ozone season-only
missing data algorithms are applied simply allow the maximum controlled reporters. Another commenter asked
sequentially. That is, the least values to be reported whenever EPA to clarify that the MCR may be
conservative algorithm is applied to the parametric data are available to implemented on a fuel-specific basis.
missing data hours until the PMA drops document that the emission controls are EPA has incorporated both of these
below 95%. Then, the next algorithm is operating properly. The proposed rule suggestions in the final rule. Two other
applied until the PMA has dropped would further clarify that this reporting commenters suggested that, for common
below 90%, and so on. option applies only to the third missing stack configurations, EPA should allow
Since Part 75 is not clear about which data tier, when the PMA is greater than the substitute data values to be
of the two methods should be used for or equal to 80.0 percent, but less than apportioned or prorated in some way
missing data substitution, EPA proposed 90.0 percent. instead of requiring maximum potential
to amend §§ 75.33 and 75.32(b), to EPA also proposed to add a new values to be reported, in cases where the
clarify that the stepwise, hour-by-hour paragraph (a)(5) to § 75.34, which would emission controls installed on some of
method is the preferred one, and that allow units with add-on emission the units sharing the stack are
use of that method would be required controls to report alternative substitute documented to be operating properly,
for all CEMS data recorded on and after data values for missing data periods in but such documentation cannot be
January 1, 2009, and for any CEMS data the fourth missing data tier, when the provided for the controls on the other
recorded in XML-format during the PMA is below 80.0 percent. Proposed units. The Agency believes that this
transition year of 2008. § 75.34(a)(5) would allow the owner or approach would unnecessarily
operator to replace the maximum complicate the missing data substitution
Summary of Rule Changes potential SO2 or NOX concentration process and would provide no
Commenters unanimously supported (MPC) or the maximum potential NOX assurance that emissions are not being
the proposal to adopt stepwise missing emission rate (MER) with a less underestimated. Therefore, this
data substitution and the proposed conservative substitute data value, for suggestion was not incorporated in the
amendments to §§ 75.32 and 75.33 have missing data hours where parametric final rule.
been finalized. data, (as described in §§ 75.34(d) and
75.58(b)) are available to verify proper 3. Substitute Data Values for Hg
2. Substitute Data Values for Controlled operation of the add-on controls. Background
Units Specifically, for SO2 and NOX
concentration, the replacement value for EPA proposed to revise the Hg
Background missing data procedures. First, for Hg
the MPC would be the greater of: (a) The
For units with add-on emission maximum expected concentration CEMS, the text of § 75.38(a) would be
controls, when the PMA for SO2 or NOX (MEC); or (b) 1.25 times the maximum amended to clarify that the PMA
is below 90.0 percent, § 75.34(a)(3) has controlled value in the standard missing ‘‘trigger conditions’’ for Hg monitoring
historically allowed the designated data lookback period. For NOX emission systems are different from the trigger
representative (DR) to petition the rate, the replacement value for the MER conditions for all other parameters. For
Administrator under § 75.66 for would be the greater of: (a) The all parameters except Hg, the trigger
permission to report the maximum maximum controlled NOX emission rate points that define the boundaries of the
controlled concentration or emission (MCR); or (b) 1.25 times the maximum four missing data tiers are 95 percent, 90
rate recorded in a specified lookback controlled value in the standard missing percent, and 80 percent PMA. However,
period instead of reporting the data lookback period. The NOX MCR for Hg the corresponding trigger points
maximum value recorded in that would be calculated in the same manner are 90 percent, 80 percent and 70
lookback period, for each missing data as the NOX MER, except that the MEC, percent, respectively.
hour in which the add-on controls are rather than the MPC, would be used in Second, EPA proposed to completely
documented to be operating properly. the calculation. The proposed revise the missing data provisions in
After more than ten years of alternative data substitution § 75.39 for sorbent trap monitoring
implementing the Acid Rain Program, methodology in § 75.34(a)(5) would systems, to make them the same as for
EPA no longer believes that such special ensure that the substitute data values for Hg CEMS, so that. the initial missing
petitions are necessary, because sources the fourth missing data tier are always data procedures of § 75.31(b) and the
with add-on controls are required to higher than the corresponding substitute standard Hg missing data provisions of
implement a quality assurance/quality data values for the third tier. § 75.38 would be followed for sorbent
control (QA/QC) program that includes Finally, EPA proposed to revise trap systems. EPA believes that this
the recording of parametric data to § 75.38(c) to extend the alternative proposed missing data approach greatly
document the hourly operating status of missing data options for the third and simplifies the missing data substitution
the emission controls. This parametric fourth tiers to mercury (Hg) process for Hg monitoring systems. The
information must be made available to concentration, and § 75.58(b)(3) would hourly Hg concentration data stream
inspectors and auditors upon request. be revised to be consistent with the from a sorbent trap system will look
Therefore, any claim that the emission proposed revisions to §§ 75.34(a)(3), essentially the same as the data stream
controls were operating properly during 75.34(a)(5), and 75.38(c). from a CEMS, except that the Hg
a particular missing data period can be concentration will ‘‘flat-line’’ (i.e., will
easily verified through the audit Summary of Rule Changes not change) during each data collection
process. Comments on the proposed period. Therefore, under the proposal,
In view of this, the Agency proposed alternative missing data substitution when the owner or operator elects to use
to remove from § 75.34(a)(3) and values for controlled units were a primary Hg CEMS and a backup
§ 75.66(f) the requirement to petition the generally supportive and these sorbent trap system (or vice-versa), the
Administrator to use the maximum provisions have been finalized. Two appropriate substitute data values
controlled SO2 or NOX concentration (or commenters requested that parallel would be derived from a lookback
maximum controlled NOX emission language be added to § 75.72(c)(3), to through the previous 720 hours of
rate) from the applicable lookback extend the use of the new missing data quality-assured data, irrespective of
whether they were from the primary support the new XML data structure. (CAMR), which goes into effect in 2009.
monitoring system or from the backup The proposed changes to the monitoring The proposed revisions to §§ 75.4(d)
system. plan and recordkeeping sections were and 75.61(a)(3) were deemed necessary
presented, section-by-section, in Tables because the CAIR and CAMR rules do
Summary of Rule Changes
1, 2, and 3 in the preamble to the not address deferred units.
Commenters were supportive of the August 22, 2006 proposed rule. The proposed revisions to § 75.4(d)
proposed changes to the sorbent trap would require the owner or operator of
missing data procedures in § 75.39, and Summary of Rule Changes
a deferred unit to provide notice of unit
these provisions have been finalized. No significant adverse comments shutdown and recommencement of
were received on the proposed changes commercial operation, either according
4. Correction of Cross-References and they have been finalized. to § 75.61(a)(3) (for planned shutdowns
Background such as scheduled maintenance outages
1. Other Reporting Issues
For sources that report emissions data and for unplanned, forced unit outages)
a. Long-Term Cold Storage and Deferred or § 75.61(a)(7) (for units in long-term
on an ozone season-only basis, EPA
Units cold storage). For all of these
proposed to revise § 75.74(c)(3)(xi) and
(c)(3)(xii) by replacing references to Background circumstances involving deferred units,
specific missing data sections with more EPA proposed changes to Part 75 to EPA proposed that the Part 75
general references to the entire block of clarify the meaning of the term ‘‘long- continuous monitoring systems would
CEMS missing data sections, i.e., term cold storage (LTCS)’’, found in have to be certified within 90 unit
§§ 75.31 through 75.37. § 75.4(d). First, a proposed definition of operating days or 180 calendar days
long-term cold storage would be added (whichever comes first) of the date that
Summary of Rule Changes the unit recommences commercial
to § 72.2. LTCS would mean that the
No adverse comments were received unit has been completely shut down operation. In the time interval between
on these proposed rule changes and and placed in storage and that the the unit re-start and the completion of
they have been finalized, as proposed. shutdown is intended to last for an the required certification tests, the
extended period of time (at least two owner or operator would be required to
E. Recordkeeping and Reporting
calendar years). Second, the Agency report emissions data, using either: (1)
Background proposed to add a new paragraph, (a)(7), Maximum potential values; (2) the
To accommodate its new, re- to § 75.61, requiring the owner or conditional data validation procedures
engineered XML reporting format, operator to provide notifications when a of § 75.20(b)(3); (3) EPA reference
which will replace the current unit is placed in LTCS and when the methods; or (4) another procedure
electronic data reporting (EDR) format unit re-commences operation. Third, approved by petition to the
in 2009, EPA proposed to revise the modifications to § 75.20(b) were Administrator under § 75.66. Finally,
monitoring plan recordkeeping proposed, requiring recertification of all the Agency proposed to revise the
requirements in § 75.53, with monitoring systems when a unit re- notification requirements of
corresponding revisions to § 75.73(c)(3) commences operations after a period of § 75.61(a)(3) to be consistent with the
(for sources reporting NOX mass long-term cold storage. If a source proposed changes to § 75.4(d).
emissions under Subpart H) and to claiming LTCS status re-commenced Summary of Rule Changes
§ 75.84 (for sources reporting Hg mass operation sooner than two years after
emissions under Subpart I). being placed in LTCS, the notification Commenters were generally
EPA proposed to add two new and recertification requirements would supportive of the proposed long-term
paragraphs, (g) and (h), to § 75.53, apply. Fourth, the proposed rule would cold storage provisions, requesting only
which describe the required monitoring exempt a unit in LTCS from quarterly minor clarifications. These provisions
plan data elements in EPA’s re- emissions reporting under § 75.64 until have been finalized with no substantive
engineered XML data structure. Under the unit recommences operation. changes. One commenter encouraged
this proposal, the provisions of Parallel LTCS rule provisions and EPA to adopt the proposed amendments
paragraphs (g) and (h) would be appropriate cross-references regarding to broaden the scope of § 75.4(d), to
followed instead of the existing quarterly reporting requirements for ensure that deferred units under
recordkeeping requirements of Subpart H and Subpart I units would be programs such as CAIR and CAMR are
paragraphs (e) and (f), on and after added to §§ 75.73(f)(1) and 75.84(f)(1), provided with a reasonable window of
January 1, 2009. In 2008, sources would respectively, for consistency. time in which to certify the required
be allowed to choose between the EDR EPA also proposed to revise the monitoring systems, when the units
format and XML, but new sources provisions of §§ 75.4(d) and 75.61(a)(3) resume operation. EPA has finalized
reporting for the first time in 2008 pertaining to ‘‘deferred’’ units, i.e., units these amendments to § 75.4(d), as
would be strongly encouraged to use the for which a planned or unplanned proposed.
XML format. Included among the outage prevents the required continuous b. Notice of Initial Certification
proposed monitoring plan changes monitoring systems from being certified Deadline
would be mandatory recording and by the compliance date. The proposed
revisions would broaden the scope of Background
reporting of the key rectangular duct
wall effects data elements using these § 75.4(d) beyond the Acid Rain Program, EPA proposed to add a new paragraph
record types. The proposed to include units in State or Federal (a)(8) to § 75.61, to require new and
requirements to record and report the pollutant mass emissions reduction newly affected sources to notify EPA
results of wall effects adjustment factor programs that adopt the monitoring and when the monitoring system
(WAF) determinations in the monitoring reporting provisions of Part 75. certification deadline is reached.
plan are found in §§ 75.53 (e) and (g) Examples of such programs include the Depending on the program(s) to which
and in § 75.64. Clean Air Interstate Regulation (CAIR), the unit is subject, this date will always
EPA also proposed to make a series of which is scheduled to begin in 2008 and be a particular number of calendar days
modifications to §§ 75.58 and 75.59 to the Clean Air Mercury Regulation or unit operating days after a unit either:
(a) Commences commercial operation; Summary of Rule Changes g. Modifications to § 75.64

(b) commences operation; or (c) Background
No adverse comments were received
becomes an affected unit. For Acid Rain
on these proposed rule changes and As part of its data systems re-
Program sources, the Agency must know
they have been finalized, as proposed. engineering effort, EPA proposed to
this date to correctly assess when to
begin counting emissions against d. EPA Form 7610–14 revise § 75.64(a) to describe the
allowances pursuant to § 72.9. Knowing transition from the existing EDR
Background reporting requirements to the reporting
this date also confirms that the
monitoring systems either have or have EPA proposed to amend §§ 75.63(a)(1) requirements of the new XML format.
not been certified by the legal deadline. and (a)(2), to remove the requirement to The Agency proposed to renumber
submit hardcopy EPA form 7610–14 several paragraphs, to replace
Summary of Rule Changes along with every certification or paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) with new
recertification application. Significant paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(7), and to
One commenter asserted that the remove existing paragraph (a)(8).
upgrades to EPA’s data systems have
requirement for sources to submit to
been made in recent years, and Form Summary of Rule Changes
EPA a notification of the deadline for
7610–14 is no longer needed to process
initial monitoring system certification is No adverse comments were received
these applications.
unnecessarily burdensome and should on these proposed rule changes. These
not be incorporated into Part 75. Summary of Rule Changes amendments to § 75.64(a) have been
Another commenter requested that the finalized, as proposed.
information be reported in the
on these proposed rule changes and h. Steam Load Reporting
electronic monitoring plan, rather than
they have been finalized, as proposed.
requiring a separate notification. EPA Background
does not agree that reporting this e. LME Applications EPA proposed to add a third option to
information will be burdensome or that Background Part 75 for reporting load data in units
it is appropriate to report the date of the of mmBtu/hr of steam thermal output.
initial certification deadline in the EPA proposed to remove the This option is needed to accommodate
electronic monitoring plan. Rather, this requirement from § 75.63(a)(1)(ii)(A) for emissions trading programs in which
date is an essential data element that a hardcopy LME certification allowance allocations are made on an
will be managed using the web-based application to be submitted to the electrical or thermal output basis, rather
CAMD Business System (CBS). Administrator. The proposal would than a heat input basis. The Agency
Therefore, the notification requirement require only the electronic portion of proposed to add text to several sections
can be met electronically using the CBS. the application, including the in the main body of Part 75 and to the
In view of this, the amendment to monitoring plan and LME qualification Appendices, to accommodate the new
§ 75.61 has been finalized, as proposed. records, to be sent to EPA’s Clean Air reporting option.
Markets Division. The hardcopy portion
c. Monitoring Plan Submittal Deadline of the LME application would be sent to Summary of Rule Changes
Background the State and to the EPA Regional No adverse comments were received
Office. on these proposed rule changes and
EPA proposed to amend § 75.62(a) by they have been finalized, as proposed.
changing the submittal deadline for the
initial monitoring plan for new and No adverse comments were received i. Test Notification Requirements—Hg
newly-affected units from 45 days to 21 on these proposed rule changes and Low Mass Emission Units
days prior to the initial certification they have been finalized, as proposed. Background
testing, in order to synchronize the
f. Reporting Test Data for Diagnostic Section 75.61(a)(5) requires the owner
initial monitoring plan submittal with
Events or operator or the designated
the initial test notice. Corresponding
Background representative to provide 21-day
changes to Subpart H (§ 75.73(e)) and to
advance notice for various periodic
Subpart I (§ 75.84(e)) were proposed, for EPA proposed to revise quality-assurance tests, including the
consistency. § 75.63(a)(2)(iii) to make the reporting of semiannual or annual relative accuracy
EPA also proposed to remove the the results of diagnostic tests more tests of CEMS, and for the re-tests of
requirement from § 75.62(a)(1) that the flexible. Rather than requiring these test Appendix E peaking units and low mass
electronic monitoring plan must be results to be reported in the electronic emissions (LME) units. Test notices
submitted ‘‘in each electronic quarterly quarterly report for the quarter in which must be provided to the Administrator,
report’’. Rather, inclusion of the the tests are performed, they could to the appropriate EPA Regional Office
monitoring plan in the report would be either be submitted prior to or and to the State or local agency (unless
optional, and monitoring plan updates concurrent with that quarterly report. a particular agency issues a waiver from
would be made either prior to or However, this proposed flexibility in the the requirement).
concurrent with (but not later than) the reporting of diagnostic test results Under Subpart I of Part 75, certain
date of submission of the quarterly would only be available to sources low-emitting units covered by the Clean
report. These proposed revisions would reporting in the new XML format under Air Mercury Regulation (CAMR) may
allow sources to maintain their the re-engineered data submission qualify under §§ 75.81(b) through (d) to
monitoring plan information separate process. perform periodic (semiannual or
from the quarterly report, but this annual) Hg emission testing in lieu of
option would only be available to operating and maintaining continuous
sources reporting in the new XML No adverse comments were received Hg monitoring systems. EPA proposed
format under the re-engineered data on these proposed rule changes and to expand the notification requirements
submission process. they have been finalized, as proposed. of § 75.61(a)(5) and to add
corresponding introductory text to applied. Additional supporting data system. The NOX concentration system
§ 75.61(a)(1), requiring the owner or elements, not in the current rule, are would be used only to determine NOX
operator or the designated also needed for Method 2 flow RATAs mass emissions, and the NOX emission
representative to provide at least 21 when wall effects adjustments are made. rate system would be used only to meet
days notice of the scheduled dates of In view of this, EPA proposed to revise the ARP requirement to report NOX in
these periodic Hg emission tests. the text of §§ 75.64(a)(2)(xiii), lb/mmBtu.
75.73(f)(1)(ii)(K) and 75.84(f)(1)(ii)(I)
Summary of Rule Changes and to add RATA support data elements Summary of Rule Changes
No adverse comments were received to a new paragraph, (vii), in No adverse comments were received.
on this proposed rule change and this § 75.59(a)(7), to clarify which wall This provision has been finalized, as
test notification requirement has been effects data elements must be reported proposed.
finalized, as proposed. for circular stacks, which ones are
3. Reporting of Subpart H Facility
reported for rectangular stacks and
j. Hardcopy Reports for Retests of Hg Information
ducts, and which data elements must be
Low Mass Emission Units Background
reported for both types of stacks.
Background Consistent with the proposed
Sections 75.60(b)(6) and (b)(7) require revisions to § 75.64, EPA proposed to
the designated representative (DR) to revise § 75.73(f)(1), to phase out the
on these proposed rule changes and
submit the results of certain periodic requirement of § 75.73(f)(1)(i)(B) to
they have been finalized, as proposed.
quality-assurance tests to the include facility location information in
appropriate EPA Regional Office or to F. Subpart H (NOX Mass Emissions) each quarterly report.
the State or local agency, when the test
1. Subpart H Diluent Monitoring Summary of Rule Changes
results are requested in writing (or by
Systems No adverse comments were received.
electronic mail). In particular, the
results of semiannual or annual RATAs Background This provision has been finalized, as
of CEMS and the routine re-tests of For coal-fired Subpart H units that proposed.
Appendix E units may be requested. If calculate NOX mass emissions as the 4. Linearity Check Requirements for
requested, the test results must be product of NOX concentration and flow Ozone Season-Only Reporters
submitted within 45 days after the test rate and are required to monitor and
is completed or within 15 days of the report the unit heat input, § 75.71(a)(2) Background
request, whichever is later. EPA requires the installation of an ‘‘O2 or For Subpart H sources that report
proposed to add a new paragraph (b)(8) CO2 diluent gas monitor’’. Consistent emissions data on an ozone season-only
to § 75.60, requiring the DR to provide, with the definition of a CEMS in § 72.2, (OSO) basis, EPA proposed to revise the
upon request from EPA or the State, the this diluent monitor, which is only used linearity check provisions in
results of the semiannual or annual Hg for the heat input determination, should § 75.74(c)(2), (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(3)(ii),
emission tests required under be described as an ‘‘O2 or CO2 (c)(3)(vi), and (c)(3)(viii). Historically,
§ 75.81(d)(4) for low-emitting units monitoring system’’. EPA proposed to OSO reporters have been required to do
covered by CAMR. The proposed time revise the text of § 75.71(a)(2) a pre-season linearity check, an in-
frame for submitting these Hg emission accordingly. season second quarter linearity check
test results would be the same as the (in May or June, if the unit operates for
current one for the RATAs and ≥ 168 hours in May and June), and a
Appendix E re-tests. No adverse comments were received. third quarter linearity check, if the unit
This clarification of § 75.71(a)(2) has operates for ≥ 168 hours in that quarter.
Summary of Rule Changes been finalized, as proposed. Many sources have misunderstood these
No adverse comments were received rule provisions, particularly the
2. Identifying a NOX Mass Methodology
and this provision has been finalized, as requirement to perform an in-season
proposed. Background linearity check in the second quarter. In
k. Wall Effects Adjustment Factors EPA proposed to revise § 75.72 to some cases, this has resulted in CEMS
require that only one NOX mass out-of-control periods and has required
Background emissions methodology be identified in the use of missing data substitution.
For sources with flow monitors the monitoring plan at any given time, OSO reporters have also been required
installed on circular stacks, reporting of and to disallow the designation of to operate and maintain each CEMS and
wall effects information is currently primary and secondary NOX mass to perform daily calibration error tests,
required by §§ 75.64(a)(2)(xiii), calculation methodologies. EPA believes in the time period extending from the
75.73(f)(1)(ii)(K) and 75.84(f)(1)(ii)(I), that one methodology for NOX mass hour of completion of the pre-season
when Method 2H is used in conjunction emissions is sufficient. If a source is linearity check through April 30. EPA
with Method 2, 2F or 2G. The specific subject to both Subpart H and to the has found that this rule provision is also
wall effects data elements that must be Acid Rain Program (ARP) and is not well-understood by the affected
reported are found in § 75.59(a)(7)(ii) concerned about losing NOX data when sources and assessing compliance with
and (a)(7)(iii). These data are submitted the diluent component of the NOX the provision has been difficult, since
along with flow RATA results, as emission rate system is out-of-control, sources have not been required to report
supplementary information. that source should choose the NOX the results of any off-season calibration
For rectangular stacks and ducts, concentration times flow rate error tests done prior to April.
some of the same supporting data calculation method as the NOX mass In view of these considerations, EPA
elements in § 75.59(a)(7)(ii) and calculation methodology. This would proposed to revise § 75.74(c)(2) to
(a)(7)(iii) are needed for flow RATAs require a NOX concentration system to require the pre-season linearity checks
performed using Method 2F or 2G, be identified in the monitoring plan, in to be conducted in the month of April,
when wall effects corrections are addition to the NOX emission rate and to delete all references to
performing the pre-season linearity proposed amendments requiring the to those proposed for linearity checks,
checks at other times. The Agency also pre-season linearity check to be in that a period of conditional data
proposed to remove the conditional performed April and the 3rd quarter test validation (720 operating hours) would
grace period provision from to be done in July were perceived as be allowed when the pre-season RATA
§ 75.74(c)(2)(i)(D), and to address (in being too restrictive. EPA does not agree is not completed by the April 30th
§ 75.74(c)(3)(ii)(E)) data validation in the with these commenters that the revised deadline. Consistent with these
case where the April linearity check is quality assurance requirements for revisions, the Agency proposed to delete
not completed prior to the start of the ozone season-only reporters lack the data validation and conditional
ozone season. In that case, data from the flexibility. The amendments allow grace period provisions in
monitor would be considered invalid as sources to use conditional data § 75.74(c)(2)(ii)(G) and (c)(2)(ii)(H) and
of May 1, unless the conditional data validation for up to 168 unit or stack to remove and reserve § 75.74(c)(3)(vi),
validation procedures of § 75.20(b)(3) operating hours, in situations where the (vii), and (viii).
are applied. A 168 unit operating hour linearity check cannot be completed by
period of conditional data validation the prescribed deadline. If the required Summary of Rule Changes
would be allowed, in which to perform test is performed and passed within the
the required linearity check. Passing the allotted window of time, the source will The amendments to § 75.74(c) have
linearity check on the first attempt incur no data loss. OSO reporters been finalized, as proposed. One
within the allotted time would result in desiring greater flexibility in scheduling commenter objected to the proposed
the conditionally valid data becoming quality assurance tests should seriously restriction on the timing of the RATAs
quality-assured. Failing the linearity consider switching to year-round and requested that the existing
check would result in all data from the reporting. Doing so would provide many flexibility in the rule be retained. The
monitor be invalidated back to the benefits, such as grace periods, test commenter expressed a strong
beginning of the ozone season and the deadline extensions, and in some cases, preference to perform RATAs in the
data would remain invalid until a test exemptions. autumn, rather than in the January-April
linearity check is passed. Performing the time frame proposed by EPA. A second
linearity check after the 168-hour period 5. RATA Requirements for Ozone commenter stated that EPA should
expires would require the data Season Only Reporters remove the requirement to keep records
validation provisions in Background of off-season daily calibration and
§ 75.20(b)(3)(viii) to be applied, subject interference check records in a format
For Subpart H sources that report
to the restrictions of § 75.74(c)(3)(xii). suitable for inspection from
EPA proposed to add a new paragraph NOX mass emission data on an ozone
season-only (OSO) basis, Part 75 has § 75.74(c)(2)(ii)(E)(1).
(F) to § 75.74(c)(3)(ii), stating that a pre-
season linearity check done in April required, for quality-assurance Regarding the first commenter’s
fulfills the second quarter linearity purposes, that at the start of each ozone assertion that the proposed RATA time
check requirement, and to remove and season each required CEMS must be frame for OSO reporters is too
reserve related Section 75.74(c)(3)(viii). within the ‘‘window’’ of data validation restrictive, EPA recommends that the
Further, proposed § 75.74(c)(3)(ii)(B) of a current, non-expired RATA. In past owner or operator seriously consider
would require the third quarter linearity years, this requirement has been met switching to year-round reporting. Year-
check to be conducted either by July 30 either by performing a RATA in the pre- round reporting allows complete
or within a 168 operating hour period of season (between October 1 and April 30) freedom to schedule RATAs at any
conditional data validation thereafter. or, in some instances, by relying on the convenient time during the year and
Finally, the Agency proposed that results of a RATA done in the previous provides many benefits, such as grace
§ 75.74(c)(3)(ii)(G) would address the ozone season. The rule has further periods, test deadline extensions, and in
case where a unit operates infrequently required each CEMS to be operated, some cases, test exemptions. Even if
and the 168 operating hour conditional calibrated and maintained in the time EPA had decided not to amend the
data validation period associated with period extending from the completion of RATA provisions for OSO reporters,
the April linearity check extends the RATA, through April 30. Many § 75.74(c)(2)(ii)(E)(1) would still require
through the second quarter, into the sources choosing the OSO reporting the CEMS to be operated, maintained
third quarter. In that case, if a linearity option find this operation and and calibrated in the time period
check is performed and passed in the maintenance (O&M) requirement to be between the RATA and the start of the
third quarter, before the 168 operating counter intuitive, because they expect to next ozone season. Thus, if the RATAs
hour window expires, EPA proposed be required to meet Part 75 monitoring are performed in the autumn (e.g.,
that this one linearity check would obligations only during the ozone November), the CEMS would have to be
satisfy all three of the ozone season season. maintained and calibrated for at least 10
linearity check requirements, i.e., for the In view of these considerations, EPA months of the year; in this case, OSO
pre-season, for the second quarter, and proposed to restrict the window of time reporting offers no clear advantage over
for the third quarter. in which pre-season RATAs may be year-round reporting.
performed. As proposed, § 75.74(c)(2)(ii)
Summary of Rule Changes would require the RATAs to be done EPA did not incorporate the second
The amendments to § 75.74(c) have either in the first quarter of the year or commenter’s suggestion to remove the
been finalized, as proposed. in the month of April. That restriction recordkeeping requirement from
Commenters supported EPA’s proposal would prohibit RATAs done in the § 75.74(c)(2)(ii)(E)(1). However, the text
to allow a linearity check performed in previous year from being used to of § 75.74(c)(6)(iii) has been revised to
April to satisfy both the pre-season and validate data in the current ozone remove the requirement to report the
second quarter linearity check season. daily calibrations and interference

requirements. However, several EPA also proposed to revise checks done in the month of April. The
commenters requested that the Agency § 75.74(c)(2)(ii)(F), to address data requirement to record these data
allow greater flexibility in the timing of validation. The proposed data remains intact, but the reporting has
the required linearity checks. The validation rules for RATAs are similar been made optional.
6. Determining Peaking Status for Ozone monitor and a diluent monitor on the would be determined from Table LM–4
Season Only Reporters duct leading from each unit to the in § 75.19.
common stack. For multiple stack The proposed amendments allowed
Background
configurations, proposed § 75.82(c)(4) one exception to the requirement to test
EPA proposed to revise § 75.74(c)(11) and (d)(3) would require the owner or the individual units sharing a common
to clarify that when peaking unit status operator to determine the hourly unit stack, in order to demonstrate that the
for ozone season-only reporters is heat input by measuring the hourly heat units qualify for low mass emitter
determined, 3,672 hours (i.e., the input rate (mmBtu/hr) at each stack, status, i.e., the case where the gas
number of hours in the ozone season) multiplying each stack heat input rate streams from the individual units are
should be used instead of 8,760 hours by the stack operating time (hr) to combined together and routed through
in the capacity factor equation. convert it to heat input (mmBtu), and emission controls that reduce the Hg
Summary of Rule Changes then summing the hourly stack heat concentration (e.g., a wet scrubber)
input values. before entering the common stack.
No adverse comments were received. Owners or operators electing to use this
This provision has been finalized, as Summary of Rule Changes option would be required to perform the
proposed. No adverse comments were received. testing with all of the units that share
7. Calculation of Ozone Season NOX These provisions have been finalized, as the stack in operation, and the
Mass Emissions—LME Units proposed. combined load during the testing would
have to be ‘‘normal’’, as defined in
Background 2. Low Mass Emission Alternative Section 6.5.2.1 of Appendix A.
EPA proposed to correct an Background EPA also proposed to revise
organizational error in Subpart H of Part § 75.81(c)(1), to specify the acceptable
Section 75.81(b) of Subpart I provides time frame in which to perform the
75. The proposal would remove
an alternative (‘‘excepted’’) monitoring initial certification testing for the low
§ 75.72(f), which describes ozone season
methodology for units with low Hg mass mass emission option. As originally
NOX mass calculations for units using
emissions. To qualify to use this published, the rule simply states that
the low mass emission (LME)
methodology, emission testing is this testing must be done ‘‘prior to the
methodology under § 75.19, and the
required to demonstrate that the unit compliance date in § 75.80(b)’’, but does
basic content of § 75.72(f) would be
has the potential to emit no more than not specify how far in advance of that
relocated to § 75.71(e). The LME
29 lb (464 ounces) of Hg per year. Once date the testing may be done and still be
provision in § 75.72 appears to have
a unit qualifies, periodic retesting considered acceptable. Further,
been inadvertently placed in that
(semiannual or annual, depending on § 75.81(d)(1) requires the test results to
section. The monitoring provisions of
the emission level) is required to be submitted as a certification
§ 75.72 apply to common and multiple
demonstrate that the unit is actually application, no later than 45 days after
stack configurations, whereas § 75.71
emitting less than 29 lb/yr of Hg. completing the testing. And
addresses unit-level monitoring. LME is
Section 75.81(e), as originally § 75.81(d)(4) requires periodic Hg
a unit-level monitoring methodology.
published, allowed the low mass retesting to commence within two or
Summary of Rule Changes emission alternative to be used for four ‘‘QA operating quarters’’ after the
No adverse comments were received. common stacks, provided that the units quarter of the certification testing.
This provision has been finalized, as sharing the stack are tested individually If there is too long a gap between the
proposed. and each one qualifies as a low-emitter. certification testing and the start of the
Though not explicitly stated in the rule, program, it becomes problematic. For
G. Subpart I (Hg Mass Emissions) it was implied that the periodic retests instance, if the testing is done too early,
1. Heat Input Provisions for Common for common stack configurations would the requirement to submit a certification
and Multiple Stacks also have to be done at the unit level. application within 45 days could result
EPA has reconsidered this approach, in applications being submitted long
Background believing it to be overly restrictive, before the regulatory agencies are ready
Due to an apparent oversight, the heat unnecessarily difficult, and costly to to receive and process them. Also, the
input monitoring provisions for certain implement. periodic retesting requirements of
monitoring configurations in Subpart I Therefore, EPA proposed to revise § 75.81(d)(4), which become active on
of Part 75 were inadvertently omitted § 75.81(e) to require Hg testing of the the certification test date, could result in
when Subpart I was promulgated. In individual units that share the common several Hg retests being done before the
particular, EPA found the heat input stack only for the initial demonstration program begins. This is clearly contrary
methodologies for common stacks that the units individually qualify as to the purpose of the retests, which, like
shared by affected and non-affected low emitters. Once this has been the periodic relative accuracy tests of
units and for multiple stack or duct satisfactorily demonstrated, the required CEMS, are intended to commence after
configurations to be missing. In view of semiannual or annual retests could then the compliance date, when Hg
this, the Agency proposed to add three be done at the common stack, at a emissions reporting has begun. This also
new paragraphs, (b)(3), (c)(4) and (d)(3) normal load level for the configuration. raises questions about which default
to § 75.82 to correct this deficiency. The proposed revisions to § 75.81(e) emission rate to use for the initial
For the common stack shared by would also allow the initial low mass reporting. In view of these
affected and non-affected units, emitter qualification for a group of considerations, EPA proposed to revise
proposed § 75.82(b)(3) would require identical units sharing a common stack § 75.81(c)(1), to require that the Hg
the owner or operator to either measure to be based on emission testing of a testing for initial certification be done
the total heat input rate at the common subset of those units. To exercise this no more than 1 year before the
stack and apportion it to the individual proposed option, the group of units compliance date. Sections 75.81(d)(2)
units by load, according to § 75.16(e)(3), would first have to qualify as identical and 75.81(d)(5) would also be revised,
or to determine the heat input rate at the under § 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(B). Then, the to address the case where a retest may
individual units by installing a flow number of units required to be tested be required before the compliance date
(e.g., when § 75.81(d)(4) requires a retest operator must record parametric data or coal as the primary fuel for the unit, in-
within two QA operating quarters, SO2 concentration data in accordance between the scheduled LME retests
following a certification test that was with § 75.58(b)(3)(i) to document proper (where coal rank is defined by ASTM
done 9 to 12 months before the operation of the controls. D388–99), an additional LME retest is
compliance date). In such cases, the For retests, provided that the required required within 720 operating hours of
default Hg emission rate used at the load level is attained and that all of the the change. The results of this retest are
beginning of the program would be the units sharing the stack are fed from the then applied retrospectively back to the
value that was obtained in the retest. same on-site coal supply during normal date and hour of the fuel switch. The
Finally, EPA proposed to amend operation, it is not necessary for all of four principal coal ranks are anthracitic,
§§ 75.81(d)(4) and (d)(5) to address the the units sharing the stack to be in bituminous, subbituminous, and
emission testing requirements when the operation during a retest. However, if lignitic. The ranks of anthracite coal
fuel supply is changed. The proposed two or more of the units that share the refuse (culm) and bituminous coal
revisions would require additional Hg stack are fed from different on-site coal refuse (gob) are considered to be
retesting within 720 unit operating supplies (e.g., one unit burns low-sulfur anthracitic and bituminous,
hours, following a change in the fuel coal for compliance and the other respectively.
supply. The results of this retest would combusts higher-sulfur coal), then the Equation 1 in § 75.81(c )(2), which is
then be applied retrospectively, back to owner or operator must either: (1) used to demonstrate that a unit qualifies
the time of the fuel switch. The Agency Perform the retest with all units in as a Hg low mass emissions unit,
also proposed to revise § 75.81(c)(1) to normal operation; or (2) if this is not conservatively estimates the unit’s
require that the fuel combusted during possible, due to circumstances beyond potential annual Hg emissions by
the initial certification testing be from the control of the owner or operator assuming that it operates at the
the same source of supply as the fuel (e.g., a forced unit outage), perform the maximum potential flow rate for 8,760
combusted when the program starts. retest with the available units operating hours per year. One commenter
The proposed revisions only addressed and assess the test results as follows. requested that EPA consider modifying
the emission testing and reporting The Hg concentration obtained in the Equation 1 to conditionally allow a
requirements for one case, i.e., where retest is used for reporting purposes if number of hours less than 8,760 to be
the source of supply for the primary fuel the concentration is greater than or used in the calculations, the condition
(assumed to be coal) changes. EPA equal to the value obtained in the most being that there is a Federally-
solicited comments and suggestions on recent test. However, if the retested enforceable permit provision in place,
how to apply the Hg low mass emitter value is lower than the Hg concentration limiting the unit’s annual operating
option in situations where the coal from the previous test, then the higher hours. EPA has incorporated this
supply does not change, but the unit value from the previous test continues suggestion into the final rule. The term
sometimes burns other types of fuel to be used for reporting purposes, and ‘‘8,760’’ in Equation 1 has been replaced
besides coal or co-fires mixtures of coal that same higher Hg concentration is with ‘‘N’’, which will either be 8,760 or
and other fuels (i.e., what emission used in Equation 1 to determine the due the maximum number of operating
testing and reporting requirements date for the next retest. hours per year allowed by the unit’s
might be appropriate). The final rule expands the testing of
Federally-enforceable operating permit
groups of identical units beyond
Summary of Rule Changes (if less than 8,760). If the operating
identical units that share a common
Commenters were generally permit restricts the unit’s annual heat
stack. Section 75.81(c)(1)(iv) has been
supportive of the proposed amendments input but not the number of annual unit
amended to allow a subset of any group
that would reduce the testing operating hours, the owner or operator
of identical units to be tested according
requirements for Hg low mass emission may divide the allowable annual heat
to Table LM–4 in § 75.19, whether or
units in common stack configurations. input (mmBtu) by the design rated heat
not the units share a common stack.
The final rule differs somewhat from the input capacity of the unit (mmBtu/hr) to
This amendment is modeled after the
proposal, however, in that it also allows determine the value of ‘‘N’’.
provisions of § 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(B) for
the initial qualifying test to be Finally, no comments were received
testing groups of identical LME units.
performed at the common stack, if Several commenters objected to the on the proposal to require that the Hg
certain conditions are met. The proposed requirement to perform emission testing for initial certification
conditions are: (1) Testing must be done retesting of low mass emission units of a low mass emission unit be done no
at a combined load corresponding to the when the fuel supply is changed. more than 1 year prior to the applicable
designated normal load level (low, mid, Concerns were expressed that the term compliance date. Therefore, this
or high) defined in the monitoring plan; ‘‘change in fuel supply’’ is not clearly provision has been finalized, as
(2) all of the units that share the stack defined and could be interpreted to proposed. For units subject to the Clean
must be operating in a normal, stable require frequent, unnecessary retesting, Air Mercury Regulation (CAMR), the
manner and at typical load levels during especially in light of the variation in certification deadline is January 1, 2009.
the emission testing; (3) the coal coal supplies from day to day in In view of this, only those Hg emission
combusted in each unit during the competitive wholesale power markets. tests of candidate low mass emission
testing must be representative of the A number of the commenters units that are performed on and after
coal that will be combusted in that unit recommended that retesting be limited January 1, 2008 will be accepted for
at the start of the Hg mass emission to changes in coal rank or classification initial certification.
reduction program (preferably from the (e.g., changing from bituminous coal to 3. Harmonization of Subpart I With
same source(s) of supply); and (4) if flue sub-bituminous coal). EPA has Other Proposed Rule Revisions
gas desulfurization and/or add-on Hg incorporated the commenters’
Background
emission controls are used to reduce the suggestion into the final rule. Section
level of emissions exiting from the 75.81(d)(4) of the final rule clarifies Subpart I of Part 75 also contains a
common stack, these emission controls what constitutes a ‘‘change in fuel recordkeeping and reporting section
must be operating normally during the supply’’ that will trigger LME retesting. (§ 75.84). which, for the most part,
emission testing and the owner or If a unit switches to a different rank of cross-references the primary monitoring
plan, recordkeeping, notification and would allow only program participants tests. In view of this, EPA proposed to
reporting sections of the rule (i.e., to market their gas standards as ‘‘EPA revise Section 6.1 of Appendix A to
§§ 75.53, 75.57 through 75.59, 75.61, Protocol Gases.’’ EPA proposed to require all individuals who perform the
and 75.64) and other sections of Subpart maintain a web site, listing the PGVP emission tests and CEMS performance
I. participants and the audit results, in evaluations required by Part 75 to
To make Subpart I consistent with the order to provide calibration gas users demonstrate conformance with ASTM
proposed revisions to the monitoring with detailed information about the D7036–04 ‘‘Standard Practice for
plan, recordkeeping, notification, and quality of EPA Protocol Gases. Competence of Air Emission Testing
reporting sections of Part 75, EPA EPA also proposed to: (1) Add a Bodies’’. ASTM D7036–04 specifies the
proposed to make a number of minor definition of ‘‘specialty gas producer’’ to general requirements for demonstrating
adjustments to the text of §§ 75.84(c)(3), § 72.2; (2) delete several calibration gas that an air emission testing body (AETB)
(e)(1), (e)(2), and (f)(1). standards and reference materials from is competent to perform emission tests
Summary of Rule Changes section 5.1 of appendix A (believing of stationary sources.
them to be prohibitively expensive and Proposed revisions to Section 6.1.2 of
No adverse comments were received. not used in practice by Part 75 sources); Appendix A, Section 2.1 of Appendix E,
These provisions have been finalized, as (3) remove from § 72.2 the and Section 1 of Appendix B make it
proposed. corresponding definitions of the deleted clear that this requirement would apply
H. Appendix A calibration gas standards; and (4) only to AETBs that perform RATAs,
consolidate the remaining calibration NOX emission tests of Appendix E and
1. CO2 Span Values gas standards under section 5.1 of LME units, or Hg emission tests of low-
Background appendix A. emitting units. It would not be
Finally, EPA requested comment on applicable to the daily operation, daily
EPA proposed to revise Section 2.1.3 QA/QC (daily calibration error check,
of Appendix A, to allow the use of CO2 the appropriate accuracy specification
to apply to Hg cylinder gases and other daily flow interference check, etc.),
spans less than 6.0 percent CO2 if a weekly QA/QC (i.e., Hg system integrity
technical justification is provided in the Hg calibration standards (e.g., gases
from NIST-traceable generators). checks), quarterly QA/QC (linearity
hardcopy monitoring plan. This added checks, etc.), and routine maintenance
flexibility in the CO2 span value mirrors Currently, EPA requires that accuracy of
other EPA Protocol gases to be within 2 of the CEMS.
a similar provision in Section 2.1.3 for EPA also proposed to incorporate
O2 span values. percent of the certified tag values.
ASTM Method D7036–04 by reference
Summary of Rule Changes Summary of Rule Changes in § 75.6(a)(45), and to add a definition
Only one organization commented on of ‘‘Air Emission Testing Body’’ to
No adverse comments were received. § 72.2.
This provision has been finalized, as the proposed protocol gas verification
proposed. program (PGVP). The commenter stated Summary of Rule Changes
that a transition period is needed to The amendments to Section 6.1.2 of
2. Protocol Gas Audit Program implement the program. Sources need Appendix A, Section 2.1 of Appendix E,
Background time to communicate with their gas and to Section 1 of Appendix B,
EPA is responsible for implementing vendors regarding their participation in requiring AETBs to conform to ASTM
air quality programs that rely heavily on the PGVP. The commenter further D7036–04, have been finalized, as
the accuracy of calibration gas asserted that the PGVP would be proposed. Two commenters strongly
standards. Section 2.1.10 of ‘‘EPA disruptive and costly, both in the short- supported the proposed revisions.
Traceability Protocol for Assay and term and in the long-term, and that the However, several others objected to
Certification of Gaseous Calibration affected sources would bear the brunt of them, believing they would be costly
Standards’’ (Protocol Procedures), the cost impact. and burdensome, without producing
September 1997 (EPA–600/R–97/121) EPA agrees with the commenter any noticeable improvement in data
states that EPA will periodically assess regarding the need for a transition quality. EPA does not agree with these
the accuracy of calibration gases and period. The final rule amends section commenters, for the following reasons.
publish the results. Between 1978 and 5.1.4 (c) to have the Protocol Gas The experience of the State and
1996, EPA conducted several Verification Program (PGVP) take effect Federal regulators in the ASTM work
performance audits of calibration gases on January 1, 2009. As the commenter group indicates that implementation of
from various manufacturers. One has stated, the costs of the PGVP will be the ASTM Practice will result in
notable result of these audits was a borne by the Part 75 sources using the improved data quality. EPA believes the
steady, significant reduction in the calibration gases, and the Agency notes evidence is abundant that unqualified,
failure rate of the audited gas cylinders, that these minimal costs ($5 to $10 under-trained and inexperienced testers
from about 27% in 1992 down to 5% in added to a $500 to $1,000 cylinder) will are often deployed on testing projects.
1996. The annual audits were be offset by the savings generated by The Agency has had experiences with
discontinued after 1996. Then, in 2003, fewer failed calibration error tests, tests that have been invalidated or
EPA conducted a ‘‘surprise’’ audit of 14 linearity checks, and relative accuracy called into question due to poor
national specialty gas producers and test audits. performance by testing contractors (see
found that the failure rate had risen to 3. Requirements for Air Emission Docket Items OAR–2005–0132–0009,
11%. Testing Bodies –0021, and –0035). Conformance with
In view of this, EPA proposed to ASTM D7036–04 does not guarantee
establish a Protocol Gas Verification Background that every test will be performed
Program (PGVP) and would require that Since the inception of the Acid Rain properly. However, it will reduce the
EPA Protocol Gases being used for 40 Program, field audits of Part 75-affected likelihood of problems. Furthermore, it
CFR Part 75 purposes be obtained from facilities have brought to EPA’s provides a guideline for both regulatory
specialty gas producers who participate attention a number of improperly- agencies and affected sources to
in the PGVP. As proposed, the rule performed RATAs and other QA/QC evaluate and select competent testing
firms. One of the cornerstones of the standard depend on the current state of comply with ASTM D7036–04 are
Practice is that AETBs must collect an AETB’s quality program. Those that reasonable. Similar requirements have
performance data on how well they plan do not currently have an organized been successfully implemented for
and execute test projects. These data quality program will most likely incur many years in the UK with no small
must be shared with regulators and greater costs than those who do. In any companies going out of business and no
clients upon request. case, the burden will be no greater than complaints of being overly burdensome
In response to claims that ASTM that experienced by the UK companies on industry. EPA does not expect to
D7036–04 will significantly increase the who successfully went through the same provide funds to support small stack
cost and burden of Part 75 testing, EPA process. test companies in meeting the
notes that no data were provided to The main costs to comply with the requirements of ASTM D7036–04.
support these claims. The ISO 17025 ASTM D7036–04 standard are EPA notes that virtually the same
standard upon which the ASTM associated with taking a stack test QSTI program has been in place in Europe for
standard is based has been implemented (qualified stack test individual) several years and is functioning very
in Europe for many years. Mark Elliot, competency exam, and developing or well with the support of stack testers,
Chairman of the Stack Testing revising a quality assurance (QA) the government, and industry. The
Association (STA) of Great Britain, has manual. A nationwide compliance cost ASTM standard is actually less stringent
provided the following information on estimate may be obtained using the in some areas than the European
the costs of their programs. Their following estimates: program. Based on this extensive
certification program (for individuals) is • 450 stack test companies in U.S. experience in Europe, EPA believes that
called MCERTS. (The number of private (external) stack this program can be successfully
• MCERTS testing fees: Level 1 $350; test companies came from www.epa.gov/ implemented here in the U.S. with very
Level 2 $940 ttn/emc/software.html#testfirm. RMB little additional burden. In summary,
• Technical endorsements (1–4): $350 Consulting, Inc. estimated 10 in-house there is an abundance of both data and
each utility RATA test teams in the U.S.); experience showing that this program
The Level 2 certification requires a • On average, 10 people per company can be implemented without an
personal interview with the applicant. (Source: www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/ unreasonable burden, and also
Please note that according to Mr. Elliot, software.html#testfirm); (according to UK industry participants)
this program has been successfully • QSTI exam (required by ASTM) that it will improve the quality of data.
implemented in the UK with no small costs $150 and must be taken every 5 Two commenters asserted that the
companies going out of business and no years (Source: December 11, 2006 letter existing infrastructure is not adequate
complaints of being overly burdensome from the Source Evaluation Society in for testers to comply with the ASTM
on industry. In fact, many large Docket OAR–2005–0132); and method. EPA disagrees with these
companies such as Mobil, Dow, Pfizer, • Roughly 1 QSTI is required for claims. The Source Evaluation Society
and 3M are members of the STA and every 3 people in a stack test company. is currently offering qualification exams
fully support the program because, Using these inputs, the Agency in several areas. The commenters may
according to Mr. Elliot, they believe it estimates the cost to comply with ASTM be concerned that the SES website used
improves the quality of the data D7036–04 at about $100 per yr per to state that their exams may not
provided by testing companies. Even company to cover the QSTI exam. There specifically satisfy the requirements of
major UK utility companies such as is also approximately a $4,000 one time the ASTM Practice (because they were
Drax Power, Energy Power Resources, cost per company, whether a large or not developed specifically for that
the Electricity Supply Board, PB Power, small entity as defined by the Small purpose). However, SES has updated
Scottish and Southern Energy, and Business Administration’s (SBA) the wording on their Web site to say that
Scottish Power participate in the regulations at 13 CFR 121.201, to their qualification exams do meet the
program. And they do this voluntarily develop a QA manual (estimate exam requirement of the ASTM
because they have found it to their provided by Air Tech, see Docket Item Practice. The Stack Testing
benefit to do so. # EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0132–0093). Accreditation Council (STAC) also
There are several differences between However, the costs will be borne by the recognizes that not only does the SES
the program described in the final rule Part 75 sources using the air emission program meet the requirements of the
and the UK program. First, the final rule testing bodies, and the Agency notes ASTM standard—it actually exceeds
does not require accreditation. The that these costs will be offset by the them. It requires more experience than
individual testing requirements in the savings generated by fewer failed or the ASTM standard and also requires
rule are less expensive and less incorrectly performed relative accuracy letters of recommendation. Both EPA
stringent than the UK program. In the test audits, and fewer repeat tests and STAC accept an SES certification as
US, The Source Evaluation Society is required. Therefore, the effect of this meeting the external testing and
currently providing Qualified revision is to actually relieve a experience requirements of the ASTM
Individual testing. The fees are $155 for regulatory burden on these entities. Practice.
the first test (including a one-time $15 Regarding the issue of the financial If an external QSTI test is not
SES membership) and $89 for any impact on smaller companies and the available to a company, an internal test
subsequent tests taken during the same request to provide funds to these may be used to meet the requirements
testing session). It should also be noted companies, EPA notes that small stack of ASTM D7036–04 until an external
that ASTM D7036–04 does not require test companies were represented on the test becomes available. EPA is aware of
that every individual be tested. Only ASTM work group. At least one small at least one large stack test company
one ‘‘Qualified Individual’’ need be stack test company (3 people) has that has developed a training module for
present on-site during a test. Therefore, already complied with ASTM D7036– mercury methods meeting the
even this minimal cost and burden is 04, is supportive of the requirement, requirements of the ASTM D7036–04,
considerably less than the successful and expects to actually realize an and has trained and tested their people
UK program. increase in business because of their according to the internal qualification
The costs of coming into initial compliance with ASTM D7036–04. As exam provision of ASTM D7036–04.
compliance with the ASTM D7036–04 stated in another response, the costs to When a third party test becomes
available, this company has indicated calibration records for the equipment for the diluent monitor component of a
that they will re-certify their people used, or failing to follow through with NOX-diluent monitoring system.
according to the requirements of ASTM corrective actions when required.
D7036–04. The Source Evaluation Summary of Rule Changes
There will undoubtedly be some
Society is reviewing steps to improve discussions between EPA, affected The proposed amendments to Section
and expand the QSTI examination sources and AETB’s as this program 6.2 of Appendix A have been finalized,
process. unfolds that will help define the without substantive change. At the
Four commenters asked EPA to clarify implementation of the Practice. But this request of one commenter, the final rule
how compliance with ASTM D7036–04 is the case with every new rule and clarifies that the low-span linearity
would be determined. Section 6.1.2 in standard. exemption applies to recertification as
Appendix A of the final rule specifically well as to initial certification and
There is always a balance in standard
states that there are two ways an AETB ongoing QA.
writing between being overly detailed
can certify compliance: (1) A certificate
of accreditation, or (2) a letter of and prescriptive and being too loose and 5. Dual Span Applications-Data
certification signed by senior flexible. The stakeholders involved in Validation
management. The latter option is similar the consensus process of ASTM
determined that the proper balance had Background
to the way major sources certify
compliance with their Title V permits. been achieved. It is important to keep in
EPA proposed to clarify the
However, AETBs are under much more mind that ASTM D7036–04 is
relationship between the quality-
direct regulatory scrutiny than a Title V essentially an international standard
assured (QA) status of the low and high
source. Every state has a field test that has been used successfully in
ranges of a gas monitor in a dual-span
observer program. In the case of one countries all over the world.
application. Sections 2.1.1.5(b) and
large stack testing company, Clean Air Three commenters requested that EPA 2.1.2.5(b) of Appendix A have provided
Engineering, about half of their provide a 1–2 year transition period instructions for reporting SO2 and NOX
compliance tests are directly observed after promulgation of the final rule, to concentration data when the full-scale
by state regulators. This oversight allow AETBs sufficient time to conform range of the monitor is exceeded. For
provides an on-going check of whether to ASTM D7036–04. Particular concerns single-range applications, reporting a
an AETB remains in conformance. In co- were expressed about the availability of value of 200 percent of the range has
operation with the New Jersey DEP, a Qualified Individuals (QIs) for Hg been required when a full-scale
standardized state observer checklist is emission testing. EPA agrees that a exceedance occurs. For dual range
being developed that will facilitate transition period is appropriate, given applications, if the low range is
incorporating state observer assessments the testers’ relative unfamiliarity with exceeded, no special reporting has been
into the ASTM process. Hg test methods. Therefore, the final necessary, provided that the high range
EPA expects to treat non-compliance rule gives AETBs until January 1, 2009 is ‘‘available and not out-of-control or
with this standard in the same way it to comply with ASTM D7036–04. out-of-service for any reason’’. However,
treats noncompliance with any other A number of other comments were if the high range is ‘‘not able to provide
standard—using its enforcement received on the proposed AETB quality-assured data’’ during the low-
discretion. EPA does not anticipate certification program. These are range exceedance, then sources have
invalidating test results because of addressed in detail in the Response to been required to report the maximum
minor infractions. The proper way to Comments (RTC) document. potential concentration (MPC).
deal with these issues, if either the
regulatory authority or the client 4. Linearity Requirements for Dual-Span Believing that the two phrases used to
discovers them, is to notify the AETB Applications describe the QA status of the high range
that a problem has been found. The Background during low-scale exceedances, i.e.,
AETB is then obligated to initiate a ‘‘available and not out-of-control or out-
corrective action to address the In May 1999, EPA revised the of-service for any reason’’ and ‘‘not able
problem. This becomes part of the linearity check provisions in Part 75, to provide quality assured data’’ to be
AETB’s Performance Data required by Appendix A, section 6.2, to exempt SO2 too general, the Agency proposed to
the Practice. The Agency recommends and NOX span values of 30 ppm or less revise these rule texts by defining the
that the client also ask the AETB to from performing linearity checks. Since QA status of the high range in terms of
report back on what corrective actions the May 1999 revisions became its most recent calibration error and
were taken. In the case of serious effective, some have questioned whether linearity checks. Provided that both of
infractions, EPA may exercise the same the linearity exemption applies only to these QA tests are still ‘‘active’’, i.e.,
authority it has always had to reject the ongoing QA or whether it applies also their windows of data validation have
test. to initial certification. Others have not expired, the high range would be
EPA encounters deviations in test asked whether the exemption applies considered in-control and able to
methodology routinely in reviewing only to a particular measurement range provide quality-assured data. However
stack test reports. Minor deviations are or to all of the linearity check if either of the tests has expired, data
noted and reported back to the source requirements for a monitoring system. recorded on the high range would be
but the underlying results are accepted. In view of this, EPA proposed to revise considered invalid until the expired test
Major deviations result in a rejection of Section 6.2 of Appendix A to make it was repeated and passed. The MPC
the test. This situation is no different. clear that the 30 ppm linearity would be reported until the expired
This Practice should be treated much exemption: (1) Is range-specific; (2) high-range test is redone or until the
like a test method in this regard. Minor covers both initial certification and data return to the low scale. Thus, the
deviations may be of the type the ongoing QA; (3) does not remove the proposed revisions would clarify that
commenters cite in their examples. requirement to perform linearity checks when the low range is up-to-date on its
Major deviations may include (for of the high range (if > 30 ppm) for dual QA tests but the high range is not, the
example) not having a Qualified span applications; and (4) does not take QA status of each range is evaluated
Individual on-site, not having proper away the linearity check requirements separately.
Summary of Rule Changes i.e., begin the test by measuring stack absolute difference between the
No adverse comments were received. gas emissions and then inject the reference gas value and the monitor
These provisions have been finalized, as calibration gas. EPA agrees with this response.
proposed. comment and has revised the cycle time
test procedure and Figure 6 in
6. Cycle Time Test-Stability Criteria Appendix A accordingly. EPA believes In the final rule, the performance
Background this change in the test procedure (which specifications for the linearity checks
is closer to the way in which the test and system integrity checks of Hg
The cycle time test described in monitors have been made the same, but
was originally presented in the January
Section 6.4 of Appendix A is required the proposed 5.0 percent of span
1993 rule) gives a more accurate
for the initial certification and criterion (with an alternative
indication of the monitor’s true
recertification of gas monitoring specification of 0.6 µg/m3) has not been
response time and will help to prevent
systems, and occasionally as a adopted. The commenters did not take
‘‘false positive’’ test failures.
diagnostic test. The test is designed to issue with the proposal to equalize the
EPA has also revised the reporting
determine how long it takes for a performance specifications for the two
requirement (in Appendix A § 6.4) for
monitor to respond to step changes in QA tests, but several commenters
cycle time tests of dual range monitors
gas concentration. Two calibration gases objected to the proposed values of the
in light of the transition to the revised
(zero- and high-level) are used for the specifications, citing a lack of
XML format. The change requires that
test, which has both an upscale and a supporting data to demonstrate that the
cycle time for both ranges of a
downscale component. specifications are achievable. Two
Section 6.4 has specified criteria for component be reported separately
(consistent with the reporting of other commenters favored setting both
determining when a stable gas specifications at the existing values for
concentration reading has been component level tests for CEMS), rather
than only reporting the results from the the linearity check, i.e., 10.0 percent of
obtained. The reading is considered the reference gas value, with an
stable if it changes by less than 2.0 range with the longer cycle time. This
change is consistent with the proposed alternative specification of 1.0 µg/m3.
percent of the span value for 2 minutes In response to these comments, EPA
or less than 6.0 percent from the average changes that required reporting of
analyzed data from two recent field
concentration over 6 minutes. These certain test at the component level
studies in which elemental and
criteria are reasonable when the source rather than at a system/component
oxidized Hg calibration gases were
effluent concentrations are moderate or level, which overall reduces redundant
injected into commercially-available Hg
high. However, when concentrations are reporting of test data from shared
CEMS, at different concentration levels
very low, the criteria can become overly components. No adverse comments
(low, mid, high). Based on the results of
stringent and difficult to meet. In view were received on those similar proposed
the data analysis, the Agency has
of this, the Agency proposed to add changes. This revision was necessary for
concluded that equalizing the
alternative stability criteria to Section consistency with those other proposed
performance specifications for linearity
6.4 of Appendix A. By the alternative changes which EPA is finalizing.
checks and system integrity checks of
criteria, an SO2 or NOX reading would 7. System Integrity and Linearity Checks Hg monitors at 10.0 percent of the
be considered stable if it changed by no of Hg CEMS reference gas value, with an alternate
more than 0.5 ppm for 2 minutes or, for specification of 0.8 µg/m3 absolute
Background
a diluent monitor, if it changed by no difference is appropriate, and the final
more than 0.2% CO2 or O2 for 2 The required certification tests for a rule incorporates these specifications.
minutes. Hg CEMS include a 3-level system A total of 97 data points from the two
integrity check, using a NIST-traceable field studies were analyzed. Data
Summary of Rule Changes source of oxidized Hg and a 3-level recorded during known periods of probe
Substantive changes have been made linearity check, using elemental Hg malfunction and excessive analyzer drift
to the cycle time test procedure, in standards. The performance were excluded from the analysis.
response to comments received. The specification for the system integrity Eighteen of the 97 data points analyzed
sequence of the test has been reversed, check, which is found in paragraph were elemental Hg injections, and the
i.e., it now begins with a stable reading (3)(iii) of Appendix A, Section 3.2, has rest were oxidized Hg injections. Each
of stack emissions and ends with a been that the system measurement error gas injection was evaluated on a pass/
stable reading of calibration gas must not exceed 5.0 percent of the span fail basis against six candidate sets of
concentration (see section 2.6 of the value at any of the three calibration gas performance specifications. These were:
Response to Comments document for levels. However no explanation of how (1) The proposed performance
further discussion). Commenters were to calculate the measurement error has specifications, i.e., 5.0 percent of span,
generally supportive of the proposed been provided. EPA proposed to with an alternative specification of 0.6
alternative stability criteria, and these restructure paragraph (3) of Section 3.2, µg/m3; (2) the existing linearity
have been incorporated into the final to add the necessary mathematical specifications, i.e., 10.0 percent of the
rule. One commenter noted the absence procedure. reference gas value, with alternative
of corresponding alternative stability Believing that the performance specification of 1.0 µ/m3; (3) the existing
criteria for Hg monitors. To correct this specification for the linearity check system integrity specification, i.e., 5.0
apparent oversight, the final rule (which is done with elemental Hg) percent of span, with no alternative
includes an alternative specification of should be at least as stringent as the specification; (4) 5.0 percent of span,
0.5 µg/m3 for Hg CEMS. The same performance for the system integrity with an alternative specification of 0.8
commenter also expressed concerns check (which is done with oxidized Hg), µg/m3 ; (5) 5.0 percent of span, with an
about temporal variations in stack gas the Agency also proposed to make the alternative specification of 1.0 µg/m3;
concentration (particularly for Hg) that linearity and system integrity check and (6) 10.0 percent of the reference gas
can make it difficult to meet the stability specifications for Hg monitors the same, value, with alternative specification of
criteria, and recommended that the i.e., 5.0 percent of the span value, with 0.8 µg/m3. For each set of performance
order of the cycle time test be reversed, an alternative specification to 0.6 µg/m3 specifications, the pass rate of the 97 gas
injections was determined. The two Summary of Rule Changes EPA also proposed to revise the
highest pass rates (96.9% and 95.9%) No comments were received on the RATA grace period provisions in
were attained with sets (2) and (5), proposal. Therefore, the provisions have Section 2.3.3, by removing the method
respectively, which have the widest been finalized, but there is one notable of determining the deadline for the next
alternative specification of 1.0 µg/m3. change. The proposed rule RATA after a grace period test from
Similarly high pass rates (93.8% and inappropriately limited the requirement paragraph (c) of Section 2.3.3 and
94.8%) were also attained with sets (4) to account for added moisture in the replacing it with a different method
and (6), both of which have an calibration gas to dry-basis Hg CEMS. In described in new paragraph (d).
alternative specification of 0.8 µg/m3. the final rule text, this restriction has
Paragraph (d) proposed a change to
The lowest pass rates (85.5% and the methodology for determining RATA
been removed. This is simply a
75.3%) were attained with sets (1) and deadlines, without changing the end
technical correction of a misstatement
(3), the proposed performance result. The intent of paragraph (c) in
in the proposal. Section 2.3.3 had always been for the
specifications and the existing system
integrity check specification. 9. Correction of Cross-References source to return to its original RATA
schedule following a grace period test,
From these results, EPA concludes, on Background
in order to prevent the grace period
the one hand, that both the proposed EPA proposed to correct a number of provisions from being abused. However,
performance specifications (set 1) and cross-references in Appendix A, for infrequently operated units (e.g.,
existing system integrity check Sections 6.2(g), 6.5.6(b)(3) and 6.5.6.3. many combustion turbines), the grace
specifications (set 3) may be too Regarding the system integrity checks of period sometimes spans across many
stringent. On the other hand, very high Hg monitors, Section 6.2(g) of Appendix calendar quarters, which effectively
pass rates were achieved with the four A incorrectly only referred to Section eliminates the possibility of establishing
sets having the wider alternate 2.6 of Appendix B, which only a meaningful relationship between the
specifications of 1.0 µg/m3 and 0.8 µg/ describes weekly, single-level system original RATA due date and the
m3, i.e., sets (2), (5), (4), and (6). For integrity checks. The proposed revisions deadline for the next test.
these four sets, it seems to make little or would also refer to Sections 2.1.1 and In view of these considerations, EPA
no difference whether the main 2.2.1 of Appendix B, which describe the proposed a simpler methodology for
specification is 5.0 percent of span or 3-level system integrity checks. Finally, determining RATA deadlines that will
10.0 percent of the reference gas value. corrections to sections 6.5.6(b)(3) and work for both base load units and
In view of these considerations, EPA has 6.5.6.3 of Appendix A were proposed, combustion turbines that seldom
selected the main specification for the changing references to Section 3.2 of operate. The deadline for the next
system integrity and linearity checks to Performance Specification No. 2 (PS2) RATA following a grace period test
be 10.0 percent of the reference gas to Section 8.1.3, of PS2. would be two QA operating quarters
value, and the alternative specification after the quarter of the test, if the RATA
to be the more stringent value of 0.8 µg/ Summary of Rule Changes results trigger a semiannual test
m3. These values have been No adverse comments were received. frequency, and three QA operating
incorporated into paragraph (3) of These corrections have been finalized, quarters after the quarter of the test if
Section 3.2 in Appendix A. as proposed. the RATA qualifies for an annual test
8. Correction of Hg Calibration Gas frequency. As proposed, there was one
I. Appendix B
Concentrations for Moisture exception to these rules. Regardless of
1. 3-Load Flow RATA Frequency and the number of QA operating quarters
Background RATA Grace Period that have elapsed following the grace
When calibration error tests and Background period test, the maximum allowable
linearity checks of SO2, NOX, and interval between a grace period RATA
On May 26, 1999, EPA revised and the next RATA would be eight
diluent gas monitors are performed, Appendix B of Part 75, to reduce the
EPA protocol gases are used. The calendar quarters. This is consistent
required frequency of 3-load flow with Section 2.3.1.1(a) of Appendix B.
protocol gases are essentially moisture- RATAs from annually to ‘‘at least once Finally, EPA proposed to amend
free. However, when mercury monitors every 5 consecutive calendar years’’. As paragraph (c ) of Section 2.3.3, to state
are calibrated, moisture is sometimes written, this rule provision actually that when a RATA is performed after
added to the calibration gas. This allows more than five years (20 calendar the expiration of a grace period, the
creates a potential source of error in the quarters) to elapse between 3-load flow ‘‘clock’’ is reset, and the deadline for the
calculations. In view of this, EPA RATAs. For instance, if successive 3- next RATA is determined in the usual
proposed to revise the calibration error load flow RATAs are performed in the manner, i.e., the next test would be due
procedures in section 6.3.1 of Appendix 1st quarter of 2002 and in the 4th within two QA operating quarters (for
A, to require that when moisture is quarter of 2007, this satisfies the ‘‘once semiannual frequency) or four QA
added to the Hg calibration gas, the every 5 consecutive calendar years’’ operating quarters (for annual
moisture content of the gas must be requirement, but there would be 23 frequency), not to exceed eight calendar
accounted for. The proposed revisions calendar quarters between the two tests. quarters.
would also require the calibration gas In light of this, EPA proposed to
concentration to be converted to a dry revise Section 2.3.1.3(c)(4) of Appendix Summary of Rule Changes
basis for purposes of performing the B, to require 3-load flow RATAs to be Commenters were supportive of the
calibration error calculations. done at least once every 20 calendar proposed amendments to the RATA
The Agency also proposed to add quarters. This is consistent with both grace period provisions, and no
parallel language to Section 6.2 of the other 5-year testing requirements in comments were received on the
Appendix A, in a new paragraph ‘‘(h)’’, Part 75 (i.e., for Appendix E and LME proposal to determine 3-load flow
to address this issue for the linearity units) and the maximum allowable RATA deadlines on a calendar quarter
checks and system integrity checks of interval between successive accuracy basis. Therefore, these provisions have
Hg monitors. tests of Appendix D fuel flowmeters. been finalized, as proposed.
2. RATA Requirement for Shared separate analyzers are used for the two measure emissions. While it is possible
Components ranges, a failed or expired calibration that in some instances, the problem
Background error test on one of the ranges would not causing the failure of a test on one range
affect the QA status of the other range. does not affect the accuracy of the
EPA proposed to amend paragraph (g) For a dual-range analyzer (i.e., a single monitor’s measurements on the other
in section 2.3.2 of Appendix B, to analyzer with two scales), a failed range, it is far from certain. Therefore,
specify the consequences of a failed calibration error test on either range the Agency’s firm position is that
RATA, in the case where a particular would result in an out-of-control period, whenever a calibration error test or
NOX pollutant concentration monitor is and data from the monitor would linearity check is failed on either
a component of both a NOX remain invalid until corrective actions measurement scale of a dual-range
concentration monitoring system and a are taken, followed by successful analyzer, it is necessary to calibrate both
NOX-diluent monitoring system. In such ‘‘hands-off’’ calibrations of both ranges. ranges following corrective actions
cases, the Agency proposed that if the However, if the most recent calibration (which usually involve adjustments to
NOX concentration system RATA is error test on one range of a dual-range the monitor), to verify that the monitor
failed, both the NOX concentration analyzer was successful, but its data is back in-control and is able to generate
monitoring system and the associated validation window expires, this would quality-assured data on both ranges.
NOX-diluent monitoring system would have no effect on the QA status of the
be considered out-of-control, and other range. 5. Off-Line Calibration Error Tests
successful RATAs of both monitoring Further, the Agency proposed to Background
systems would be required to get them amend Section 2.2.3(e) of Appendix B to
make it clear that ‘‘hands-off’’ linearity Section 2.1.1.2 of Appendix B allows
back in-control.
checks of both ranges of a dual-range the owner or operator to make limited
Summary of Rule Changes analyzer are required whenever a use of off-line calibration error tests to
No adverse comments were received. linearity check on either range fails or validate data if an off-line calibration
This amendment has been finalized, as is aborted (unless, of course, a particular demonstration test is performed and
proposed. range is exempted from linearity checks passed. If the off-line calibration error
under Section 6.2 of Appendix A). demonstration is successful, then off-
3. AETB Requirements line calibrations may be used to validate
Summary of Rule Changes up to 26 unit operating hours of data
Background
These provisions have been finalized, before an on-line calibration error test is
EPA proposed to amend Appendix B required.
as proposed. Two commenters did not
by adding a new Section, 1.1.4, to understand why failure of a calibration The off-line calibration provisions in
require that an Air Emissions Testing error test or a linearity check on one Appendix B have not been well-
Body (AETB) that performs emission scale of a dual-range analyzer should understood by many affected sources.
testing or RATAs for on-going quality- invalidate data on both ranges, and Through the years, EPA has received
assurance under Part 75 must conform asked for EPA to more fully explain the numerous requests for a more detailed
to ASTM D7036–04. technical basis for this requirement. explanation and/or examples of how to
Summary of Rule Changes The requirement to perform apply these rule provisions. In view of
calibration error tests or linearity checks this, the Agency proposed to revise
No adverse comments were received. on both scales of a dual-range analyzer Sections 2.1.1.2 and 2.1.5.1 of Appendix
This provision has been finalized, as to resolve an out-of-control period does B to clarify the data validation rules for
proposed. not reflect a change in Agency policy. off-line calibration error tests.
4. Calibration Error Tests and Linearity Rather, EPA’s proposal intended to EPA proposed to revise paragraph (2)
Checks-Dual Range Applications clarify the existing requirement that in Section 2.1.1.2 to state that sources
each range of a dual-range monitor must may make limited use of off-line
Background
be known to be in-control in order to calibrations if the off-line calibration
EPA proposed to revise Sections 2.1.1, validate data from the monitor. demonstration has been performed and
2.1.1.2, 2.1.5.1 and 2.2.3(e) of Appendix The final rule allows data to be passed. The proposed changes to
B, to clarify the data validation considered valid from a particular paragraph (2) of Section 2.1.5.1 would
requirements for daily calibration error measurement range that has passed a explain what ‘‘limited use’’ of off-line
tests and linearity checks of gas calibration error check when the calibrations means. Off-line calibrations
monitors when two span values and two calibration error test for the other could be used to validate up to 26
measurement ranges are required for a measurement range has expired. In such consecutive unit operating hours of data
particular parameter (e.g., SO2 or NOX). instances, since there is no indication before an on-line test is required. Each
The proposed revisions to Section that the monitor is not functioning individual off-line calibration would be
2.1.1 of Appendix B would require that properly, but there is evidence that the valid only for 26 clock hours, and if the
‘‘sufficient’’ calibration error tests be measurement range being used is sequence of consecutive operating hours
performed on the low and high monitor properly calibrated, EPA is allowing validated by off-line calibrations is
ranges to validate the data recorded on that range to be considered quality broken before reaching the 26th
each range, in accordance with Section assured. However, whenever a monitor consecutive unit operating hour, data
2.1.5 of Appendix B. EPA also proposed fails any required daily, quarterly, semi- from the monitor would become invalid
to add a new paragraph, (3), to Section annual or annual quality assurance test, until an on-line calibration is performed
2.1.5.1 of Appendix B, to clarify how regardless of range, EPA maintains that and passed.
the QA status of the low and high ranges data from that monitor must be
is determined when: (a) a calibration considered invalid until the required

error test on one of the ranges is failed; quality assurance tests are passed. A Numerous commenters objected to the
or (b) the most recent calibration error failed test on either range of a dual proposed revisions to Section 2.1.5.1 of
test of one of the ranges has expired. range monitor indicates a problem with Appendix B. The commenters found the
Under proposed paragraph (3), when the monitor’s ability to accurately proposed rule language to be confusing
rather than clarifying, and several of proposed to add the following data linearity check exemptions are provided
them asserted that EPA appeared to be validation rules for the weekly system for ‘‘non-QA operating quarters’’, i.e.,
placing new restrictions on the use of integrity check to Section 2.6 of calendar quarters in which the unit
off-line calibration error tests. Appendix B: (a) If the test fails, it would operates for < 168 hours.
After careful consideration of these trigger an out-of-control period until a However, the required frequency for
comments, EPA agrees that the subsequent system integrity check is the system integrity checks of a Hg
proposed rule language, particularly the passed; and (b) if the test is not CEMS is weekly, not quarterly. This is
term ‘‘sequence of consecutive unit performed within 168 unit operating the only weekly QA test required by
operating hours’’ can be misinterpreted. hours of the previous successful system Part 75. Therefore, the existing ‘‘QA
However, the Agency’s intent was (and integrity check, data from the CEMS operating quarter’’ model and grace
is) simply to clarify the existing would become invalid, starting with the period scheme cannot be directly
procedures for using off-line 169th unit operating hour and applied to the system integrity check. A
calibrations to validate CEMS data. That continuing until a system integrity new concept, perhaps a ‘‘QA operating
is, a source desiring to use the off-line check is passed. week’’ would have to be introduced and
calibration provisions in paragraph (2) The Agency also proposed to correct an appropriate grace period determined.
of Appendix B, section 2.1.5.1 must first a typographical error in Section 2.6 of EPA considered this approach and
pass the off-line calibration Appendix B. The performance decided against it, believing that it
demonstration described in section specification for the weekly system would unnecessarily complicate the
2.1.1.2. After successfully completing integrity check was incorrectly process of QA status tracking for Hg
this demonstration, off-line calibrations referenced as Section 3.2 (c)(3) of CEMS.
may be used on a limited basis for data Appendix A. The correct citation is The Agency believes that if the DAHS
validation. In particular, off-line Appendix A, Section 3.2, paragraph is programmed to track the number of
calibrations may be used to validate (3)(iii). unit operating hours since the last
data for up to 26 consecutive unit Summary of Rule Changes system integrity check and if an alert is
operating hours following a passed on- provided to let plant personnel know
The revision has been finalized as
line calibration error test. when the test deadline is approaching,
The term ‘‘consecutive unit operating proposed. Several commenters objected
to the proposed data validation rules for there will seldom, if ever be a missed
hours’’ does not mean consecutive clock test. Furthermore, the Agency believes
weekly system integrity checks of Hg
hours. For example, two consecutive that as experience is gained with Hg
CEMS. Commenters expressed concern
unit operating hours could be separated monitors, it may be possible to automate
that the specified test frequency, i.e.,
by several hours, days, weeks, etc., due the weekly system integrity check so
once every 168 unit operating hours,
to a unit outage. Each off-line that during the 168th hour of operation
will cause scheduling difficulties, due
calibration error test has the same since the last system integrity check, the
to the limited availability of qualified
prospective, 26 clock hour window of check is automatically initiated by the
technicians and other factors. The
data validation as an on-line calibration DAHS computer system or other
commenters requested that EPA provide
error test. appropriate programmable logic
a grace period of 72 to 96 hours for this
Therefore, for a source that has passed controller (PLC) systems. Such
QA test, to minimize the possibility of
the off-line calibration demonstration, automation would further reduce the
data loss.
EPA considers the data for a particular EPA does not agree with the probability of a missed test.
operating hour to be valid if there is: (1) commenters’ assertions that the 168
A passed on-line calibration within the 7. Correction of Hg Units of Measure—
operating hour requirement will be Figure 2
26 unit operating hours preceding that difficult to implement and that a grace
operating hour; and (2) a passed off-line period should be added. The number of Background
calibration within the 26 clock hours operating hours since the last weekly EPA proposed to correct a minor error
immediately preceding that operating system integrity check can (and should) in the units of measure for Hg
hour. The Agency has revised the be tracked by the data acquisition and concentration in Figure 2 of Appendix
proposed rule language to clarify these handling system (DAHS). An alarm or B, changing the units of micrograms per
requirements. For each hour of unit prompt could be activated when the dry standard cubic meter (µg/dscm) to
operation, these criteria will be used to deadline for the next test is near (e.g., micrograms per standard cubic meter
evaluate each monitoring system’s when 120 or 144 operating hours have (µg/scm). This change was proposed
control status with respect to daily elapsed since the last test). because not all Hg monitoring systems
calibrations. EPA favors basing the interval measure Hg concentration on a dry
6. Weekly System Integrity Check—Data between successive tests on operating basis.
Validation hours rather than clock hours in a week,
primarily for reasons of simplicity. The Summary of Rule Changes
Background Agency acknowledges that this is No adverse comments were received.
For a Hg CEMS that is equipped with distinctly different from the way in The proposed correction to Figure 2 has
a converter and that uses elemental Hg which the deadlines for RATAs and been made.
for daily calibrations, Section 2.6 of Part linearity checks are determined. For a
75, Appendix B requires a weekly RATA or linearity check, the deadline is J. Appendix D
system integrity check, using a NIST- always at the end of a calendar quarter. 1. Update of Incorporation by Reference
traceable source of oxidized Hg. This Grace periods are provided for these
‘‘weekly’’ test is required once every 168 tests because the deadlines can pass Background
unit operating hours. However, due to while the unit is either off-line or As previously noted, EPA proposed to
an apparent oversight, Section 2.6 did experiencing operational abnormalities update the list of test methods, sampling
not explain the consequences of either that prevent the monitors from being and analysis procedures, and other
failing the test or failing to perform the tested on time. Also, a limited number items that are incorporated by reference
test on schedule. In view of this, EPA of RATA deadline extensions and in § 75.6. As such, the proposed rule
included corresponding updates to the are used to qualify, the rule has required multiple GCV samples each month, or
references in Appendix D. that each individual sample result must may receive the results of multiple GCV
EPA also proposed to add to Section meet the total sulfur limit. Once a fuel samples from the fuel supplier each
2.1.5.1 of Appendix D, the American has qualified as pipeline natural gas, month. In view of this, the Agency
Petroleum Institute’s (API) Manual of Section 2.3.1.4(e) of Appendix D proposed to revise Section 2.3.4.1 to
Petroleum Measurement Standards requires annual sampling of the total require that the monthly average GCV
Chapter 22—Testing Protocol: Section sulfur content to demonstrate that the value be used for Part 75 reporting, for
2—Differential Pressure Flow fuel still meets the definition of PNG. At any month in which multiple samples
Measurement Devices (First Edition, least one sample per year must be taken are taken and analyzed. To implement
August 2005) as a new standard and if multiple samples are taken, the this provision in the case where the
procedure for verifying flowmeter rule has required each one to meet the owner or operator has elected to use the
accuracy. 0.5 gr/100 scf total sulfur limit. actual monthly GCV value in the
Many suppliers of natural gas emission calculations, revisions to
Summary of Rule Changes regularly sample the total sulfur content Section 2.3.7(c) of Appendix D were
These provisions have been finalized, of the gas (in many cases, daily) and proposed, requiring the monthly average
as proposed. Note that in response to a provide that data to their customers GCV value to be applied starting from
comment, EPA has also incorporated by upon request. Sources desiring to use the latest date of any of the individual
reference ASTM D5453–06, ‘‘Standard this data to meet the initial or ongoing GCV samples used to calculate the
Test Method for Determination of Total total sulfur sampling requirements of monthly average. In the case where an
Sulfur in Light Hydrocarbons, Spark Appendix D have asked whether the gas assumed GCV value is used in the
Ignition Engine Fuel, Diesel Engine would be disqualified from using the calculations (i.e., either a contract value
Fuel, and Engine Oil by Ultraviolet 0.0006 lb/mmBtu SO2 emission rate if or the highest monthly average from the
Fluorescence’’ 1, and has added ASTM the total sulfur content of one of these previous year), the assumed value
D5453–06 to the list of acceptable oil daily samples exceeded 0.5 gr/100 scf. would continue to be used unless
sampling methods in Section 2.2.5 of EPA has been handling these requests superseded by a higher monthly average
Appendix D (see section 2.7 of the individually, on a case-by-case basis. GCV value.
Response to Comments document for However, the Agency believes it will be
further discussion). In addition, the more efficient to address the issue Summary of Rule Changes
equation for Hourly SO2 Mass Emissions through rulemaking. In view of this, The provisions pertaining to
from the Combustion of all Fuels in amendments to Sections 2.3.1.4(a)(2) documentation that a particular gaseous
Appendix D, section 3.5.1 has been and (e) of Appendix D were proposed. fuel qualifies as pipeline natural gas
revised to be consistent with the new For the initial documentation that the have been finalized, with only minor
XLM format. This change is considered gas meets the 0.5 gr/100 scf total sulfur editorial changes. Regarding the
to be insignificant and was made to be limit, the proposed revisions to Section proposed requirement to average the
consistent with the proposed changes to 2.3.1.4(a)(2) would allow sources with results of all GCV samples of natural gas
harmonize the units of measure for at least 100 total sulfur samples from the taken in each calendar month, one
reporting hourly mass emissions. previous 12 months to reduce the data commenter asked whether the monthly
to monthly averages. Then, if all average would be used to back-calculate
2. Pipeline Natural Gas—Method of monthly averages meet the 0.5 gr/100
Qualification and Monthly GCV Values the heat input values for each day in
scf limit, the fuel would qualify as that month.
Background pipeline natural gas, and the source The proposed revisions to Section
For a unit which combusts a fuel that could use the 0.0006 lb/mmBtu default 2.3.7(c) of Appendix D specified that
meets the definition of ‘‘pipeline natural SO2 emission rate. Alternatively, if at
when the option to use the actual
gas’’ (PNG) in § 72.2, Section 2.3.1.1 of least 98 percent of the 100 (or more)
monthly GCV in the calculations is
Appendix D allows the owner or samples from the previous 12 months
selected and multiple samples are taken,
operator to estimate the unit’s SO2 mass have a total sulfur content of 0.5 gr/100
each monthly average GCV would be
emissions using a default SO2 emission scf or less, the fuel would qualify as
applied prospectively, starting on the
pipeline natural gas.
rate of 0.0006 lb/mmBtu. To qualify to date of the last sample taken during the
The proposed revisions to Section
use this SO2 emission rate, the owner or month. However, in light of the
2.3.1.4(e) would allow this same
operator must document that the natural calculation methodology to be used for commenter’s question, EPA has
gas has a total sulfur content of 0.5 the annual total sulfur sampling reconsidered this approach. The final
grains per 100 standard cubic foot or requirement. That is, each year, if the rule requires instead that each monthly
less. Section 2.3.1.4 describes three results of at least 100 total sulfur GCV value be applied to every day in
ways to initially demonstrate that the samples from the past 12 months are that month. The Agency believes that
gas meets this total sulfur requirement: obtained, the data could either be this approach provides a more
(1) Based on the gas quality reduced to monthly averages, or the representative estimate of the unit’s true
characteristics specified in a purchase percentage of the samples that meet the monthly heat input.
contract, tariff sheet, or pipeline 0.5 gr/100 scf limit could be Note that the text of paragraph (b)(2)
transportation contract; or (2) based on determined. in section 2.3.7 has also been modified
historical fuel sampling data from the EPA also proposed to clarify the gross to address the new alternative
previous 12 months; or (3) based on at calorific value (GCV) sampling methodology for making annual
least one representative sample of the requirements for pipeline natural gas in assessments of the sulfur content of
gas, if the requirements of (1) or (2) Section 2.3.4.1 of Appendix D. The natural gas.
cannot be met. When fuel sampling data
current rule requires monthly GCV 3. Requirement to Split Oil Samples

sampling for PNG. However, Section
1 ASTM D5453–05 is no longer available. EPA is
2.3.4.1 refers only to the ‘‘monthly Background
thus adding ASTM D5453–06, the version currently
available. EPA considers this a minor ministerial sample’’ (singular), whereas affected For affected units that combust fuel
correction. sources may collect and analyze oil and use the Appendix D
methodology to quantify SO2 mass estimate NOX emissions, the owner or two subsections, 8.2.1 and 8.2.2. Section
emissions and/or unit heat input, operator is required, for each fuel type, 8.2 had described a procedure for
Section 2.2 of Appendix D requires the to perform four-load emission testing for calculating the NOX mass emission rate
owner or operator to perform periodic initial certification in order to develop in lb/hr, when NOX mass emissions are
sampling of the sulfur content, gross a correlation curve of NOX emission rate determined using a NOX concentration
calorific value and density of the oil (as versus heat input rate. Each correlation monitoring system and a flow monitor.
applicable). Section 2.2.5 of Appendix D curve is programmed into the data However, Section 8.2 simply cross-
requires each oil sample to be split and acquisition and handling system referenced other parts of the rule, rather
a portion (at least 200 cc) of it to be (DAHS), and retesting is required every than showing the actual equations used.
maintained for at least 90 days after the five years (20 calendar quarters) to To correct this, the Agency proposed to
end of the allowance accounting period. develop a new curve. add Equation F–26a to subsection 8.2.1
The requirement to split and maintain If the 20 calendar quarter test and Equation F–26b to subsection 8.2.2,
a portion of each oil sample has been in deadline passes without a retest having clearly showing how the NOX mass
Appendix D since it was first been performed, the previous emission rate is calculated on a wet and
promulgated on January 11, 1993. At correlation curve expires and is no dry basis, and to renumber Equation F–
that time, on-site fuel oil sampling was longer valid. However, the appropriate 26 in Section 8.3 as Equation F–26c.
required on every day that the unit missing data procedure to follow when Proposed Equations F–26a and F–26b
combusted oil. Later, on May 17, 1995, a correlation curve expires has been have been used since 2002 by sources in
an option to sample each shipment conspicuously absent from Section 2.5
the NOX Budget Program, and the
upon delivery was added for diesel fuel. of Appendix E. To address this
equations have been represented in the
Then, on May 26, 1999, the four basic deficiency, EPA proposed to add a new
oil sampling options in the current rule EDR reporting instructions as Equations
Section, 2.5.2.4, to Appendix E,
were put in place. However, the N–1 and N–2, respectively.
requiring the fuel-specific maximum
requirement to split and maintain a potential NOX emission rate (MER) to be Summary of Rule Changes
portion of each sample has remained reported, from the date and hour in
unchanged through all of these which a baseline correlation curve No adverse comments were received.
rulemakings. expires until a new correlation curve is These provisions have been finalized, as
Believing that the requirement to split generated. proposed.
and maintain oil samples should only
apply to samples that are taken at the Summary of Rule Changes 2. Use of the Diluent Cap
affected facility, EPA proposed to revise No adverse comments were received. Background
Section 2.2.5 of Appendix D to limit this This provision has been finalized, as
requirement to samples that are taken proposed. EPA proposed to restrict the use of the
on-site. If this proposed amendment diluent cap to NOX emission rate
L. Appendix F determinations. The original purpose for
were finalized, sources electing to
sample each fuel lot would no longer be 1. NOX Mass Calculations allowing the diluent cap to be used was
required to split and maintain oil Background to keep calculated NOX emission rates
samples in cases where the samples are from approaching infinity during
taken off-site, from the fuel supplier’s EPA proposed to revise the manner in periods of unit startup and shutdown,
storage container. which NOX mass data are collected when the diluent gas (CO2 or O2)
under the XML format that will be concentration is close to the level in the
Summary of Rule Changes required in 2009 as part of EPA’s effort ambient air. However, since 1999, Part
No adverse comments were received. to re-engineer the Agency’s data 75 has allowed the diluent cap to be
This provision has been finalized, as collection systems. To achieve this, the used for heat input rate calculations,
proposed. hourly NOX mass emission rate (lb/hr) CO2 mass emission calculations, and
would be reported instead of hourly calculation of hourly CO2 concentration
K. Appendix E NOX mass emission (lb), when the from measured O2 concentrations, in
1. AETB Requirements source transitions from EDR reporting addition to being used for NOX emission
format to the XML format. rate. Sources have been allowed to use
Background To effect this, Equations F–24, and F–
the cap value for some of these
EPA proposed to revise Section 2.1 of 27 in Appendix F of Part 75 would have
calculations and not others, which
Appendix E to require that any Air to be modified and Equation F–26
Emissions Testing Body (AETB) greatly complicates the data collection
removed. However, since the current
performing emission measurements to process. EPA has also found that using
EDR reporting format will continue to
develop an Appendix E correlation the diluent cap for other parameters
be supported through 2008, these
curve or to derive a default emission besides NOX emission rate always leads
equations must remain in the rule until
rate for a LME unit, would have to to over-reporting of these parameters,
the transition to XML is complete.
conform to ASTM D7036–04. which is clearly contrary to the
Therefore, EPA proposed to revise
Section 8 of Appendix F by adding intended purpose of the diluent cap.
Summary of Rule Changes Therefore, the Agency proposed to
Equations F–24a for the reporting of
No adverse comments were received. hourly NOX mass emission rate (lb/hr) remove all of the references in Sections
This provision has been finalized, as and Equation F–27a , for the calculation 4 and 5 of Appendix F that allow the
proposed. of cumulative NOX mass emissions. In diluent cap to be used for other
2009, the use of Equations F–24a and F– parameters besides NOX emission rate.
2. Reporting Data When the Correlation
Curve Expires 27a would become mandatory for all Summary of Rule Changes
sources and Equations F–24 and F–27
Background would no longer be applicable. No adverse comments were received.
For oil and gas-fired peaking units EPA also proposed to revise Section These provisions have been finalized, as
using the Appendix E methodology to 8.2 of Appendix F, by splitting it into proposed.
3. Negative Emission Values volume of CO2 generated per million the prorated F-factor used in the
Background Btu of heat input. The F-factor is fuel- emission calculations would be derived
specific. from the Xi values from the most recent
EPA proposed to provide special Sections 3.3.5 and 3.3.6 of Appendix update. The owner or operator would be
reporting instructions to account for F allow the owner or operator to use required to document in the hard copy
situations where the equations either a default F-factor from Table 1 in portion of the monitoring plan the
prescribed by the rule yield negative Appendix F, or use Equation F–7a or F– method used to determine the Xi values.
values. First, when Equation 19–3 or 7b in Appendix F to calculate a site-
19–5 (from EPA Method 19 in 40 CFR specific F-factor, based on the Summary of Rule Changes
Part 60, Appendix A) is used to composition of the fuel. However,
calculate NOX emission rate, modified The revisions to Section 3.3.6.4 of
Appendix F has never specified how Appendix F regarding the prorating of
forms of these equations, designated as much fuel sampling data is required to
Equations 19–3D and 19–5D, would be F-factors have been finalized, with only
develop a site-specific F-factor or how minor changes. However, several
used whenever the diluent cap is often the F-factor must be updated.
applied. Second, for any hour where commenters requested that EPA
To address this issue, EPA proposed consider allowing the use of the ‘‘worst-
Equation F–14b results in a negative to revise the introductory text of
hourly average CO2 value, EPA case’’ (i.e., highest) F-factor as an
Appendix F, Section 3.3.6 to require alternative to prorating, when
proposed to require 0.0% CO2 to be each site-specific F-factor to be based on
reported as the average CO2 value for combinations of fuels are co-fired. After
a minimum of 9 samples of the fuel. careful consideration of these
that hour. Third, the Agency proposed Fuel samples taken during the 9 runs of
to require a default heat input rate value comments, EPA is persuaded by the
an annual RATA would be acceptable commenters’ arguments in favor of this
of 1 mmBtu/hr to be reported for any for this purpose. Further, re-
hour in which Equation F–17 results in option and has decided to incorporate
determination of the F-factor would be this suggestion into the final rule (see
a negative hourly heat input rate. These required at least annually, and the value
changes would be accomplished by section 2.4 of the Response to
from the most recent determination Comments document). New Section
modifying Sections, 3.3.4, 4.4.1, and would be used in the emission
5.2.3 of Appendix F. 3.3.6.5 of Appendix F allows sources
calculations. that burn combinations of fuels listed in
Summary of Rule Changes Summary of Rule Changes Table 1 of Appendix F to use the highest
These provisions have been finalized, (‘‘worst-case’’) F-factor for any unit
No adverse comments were received.
with one notable change. The final rule operating hour, in lieu of prorating the
These provisions have been finalized, as
will require a default heat input rate F-factor. Note that in view of the
proposed.
value of 1 mmBtu/hr to be reported for revisions to Section 3.3.6.4, Agency has
any hour in which Equation F–17 6. Prorated F-Factors deemed it necessary to modify the
results in a hourly heat input rate that Background language in Section 3.3.6.3 of Appendix
is less than or equal to zero. F. Administrative approval of the F-
For affected units that co-fire factor is no longer required when
4. Calculation of Stack Gas Moisture combinations of fossil fuels or fossil combinations of fossil fuels with wood
Content fuels and wood residue and that use or bark are combusted, since F-factors
Background CEMS to monitor the NOX emission rate for these fuels are listed in Table 1.
or unit heat input rate, Section 3.3.6.4 Rather, revised Section 3.3.6.3 requires
EPA proposed to add Equation F–31 of Appendix F has required a prorated Administrative approval of the F-factor
to a new Section 10 in Appendix F, to F-factor to be used in the emission only when a fuel not listed in Table 1
be used to calculate stack gas moisture calculations. The prorated F-factor is is co-fired with a fuel (or fuels) listed in
values from wet and dry oxygen calculated using Equation F–8 in the Table.
measurements, as described in Appendix F. In applying Equation F–8,
Appendix A, Section 6.5.7(a). Sources the F-factor for each type of fuel is 7. Default F-Factors
have been using this equation for many weighted according to the fraction of the Background
years and it has been represented in the total heat input contributed by the fuel.
EDR reporting instructions as Equation However, Equation F–8 has never In recent years, petroleum coke and
M–1. specified how the total unit heat input tires have begun to be used as primary
Summary of Rule Changes and the fraction of the heat input or secondary fuels by a number of
contributed by each fuel are determined. affected sources. In view of this, EPA
No adverse comments were received. Data from the CEMS cannot be used for proposed to add default F-factors for
This provision has been finalized, as this purpose because the prorated F- petroleum coke and tire-derived fuels to
proposed. factor must be known before the unit Table 1 in Section 3.3.5 of Appendix F.
5. Site-Specific F-Factors (Single Fuel) heat input rate can be calculated. The proposed values were 9,832 dscf/
To correct this situation, EPA mmBtu for Fd and 1,853 scf CO2/mmBtu
Background proposed to revise the definition of ‘‘Xi’’ for Fc for petroleum coke and 10,261
For units that use CEMS to measure (the fraction of the total heat input dscf/mmBtu for Fd and 1,803 scf CO2/
the NOX emission rate in lb/mmBtu derived from each fuel) in the Equation mmBtu for Fc for tire-derived fuels. The
and/or the unit heat input rate in F–8 nomenclature. The proposed Agency also proposed F-factors of 9,819
mmBtu/hr, an equation from Appendix revision would require sources to dscf/mmBtu (for Fd) and 1,840 scf CO2/
F of Part 75 or from Method 19 of 40 determine Xi from the best available mmBtu (for Fc) for sub-bituminous coal.
CFR Part 60 is required to convert the information on the quantity of each fuel All of the proposed F-factors were
raw CEMS data into the proper units of combusted and its GCV value over a calculated using Equations F–7a and F–
measure. Each of these equations specified time period. The value of Xi 7b and representative composition and
contains an F-factor, which represents would be updated periodically, either gross calorific value (GCV) data for each
either the total volume of flue gas or the hourly, daily, weekly, or monthly, and fuel.
Summary of Rule Changes consequences were too lenient and the specification, provided that it also
These provisions have been finalized, others unnecessarily severe. The Agency meets the rest of the Appendix K QA
with minor editorial changes. One therefore proposed to revise them to criteria, the valid trap could be used for
commenter recommended that the make them more consistent and Part 75 reporting, if the STAF value of
proposed F-factor values be rounded off equitable. 1.222 is applied to the measured Hg
Whenever one of the paired traps is concentration.
to the nearest multiple of 10, to be
accidentally lost, damaged, or broken Appendix K has required data from a
consistent with the other values in
and cannot be analyzed, § 75.15(h) has sorbent trap monitoring system to be
Table 1. EPA agrees with this comment
allowed the owner or operator to use the invalidated whenever the relative
and has rounded off the F-factors
remaining trap to determine the Hg deviation between the Hg
accordingly. concentration for the data collection concentrations measured by the paired
8. Revisions to Equation F–23 period, provided that the remaining trap traps is greater than 10 percent. EPA
meets all of the QA requirements of proposed to revise this requirement, to
Background
Appendix K. But no adjustment of the allow sources to report the higher of the
Consistent with the proposed changes data has been required to compensate two Hg concentrations measured by a
to § 75.11(e), expanding the for the loss of one of the samples. In pair of sorbent traps whenever the RD
applicability of Equation F–23, EPA view of this, EPA proposed to revise specification is not met, rather than
proposed to amend Section 7 of § 75.15(h) to require that the Hg invalidating the sorbent trap system
Appendix F (introductory text), and the concentration measured by the data for the entire collection period. The
Equation F–23 nomenclature. remaining valid trap be multiplied by a Agency also proposed, for consistency
Summary of Rule Changes ‘‘single trap adjustment factor’’ (STAF) with the proposed changes § 75.22(a), to
of 1.222. The STAF represents the revise Table K–1 to include an
No adverse comments were received. maximum amount by which the Hg alternative relative deviation
These provisions have been finalized, as concentration from the lost, damaged or specification of 20 percent for paired
proposed. broken trap could have exceeded the sorbent traps, when low effluent
M. Appendix G concentration measured by the valid concentrations of Hg (≤ 1 µg/m3) are
trap and still met the 10% RD encountered.
Background specification. EPA further proposed to add two new
Consistent with the changes to other The Agency also proposed to revise paragraphs, (k) and (l), to § 75.15.
parts of the rule, EPA proposed to Table K–1 in Appendix K, to extend the Proposed § 75.15(k) would have
update the current ASTM standards use of the STAF to cases where one of required that whenever the RATA of a
listed in Sections 2.1.2, 2.2.1, and 2.2.2, the paired sorbent traps either: (a) fails sorbent trap system is performed, the
of Appendix G, citing the newer a post-test leak check; (b) has excessive sorbent traps used to collect the RATA
versions. breakthrough in the second section; or run data must be the same size as the
(c) is unable to meet the required traps used for daily operation of the
Summary of Rule Changes percent recovery of the third section monitoring system. Likewise, the
No adverse comments were received. elemental Hg spike. In all three of these sorbent material must be the same type
These provisions have been finalized, as cases, provided that the other trap meets that is used for daily operation.
proposed. all Appendix K requirements, rather Proposed § 75.15(l) would have required
than invalidating the sorbent trap a diagnostic RATA of the sorbent trap
N. Appendix K system data for the entire collection system whenever either the size of the
Background period, the Hg concentration measured sorbent traps or the type of sorbent
by the valid trap, multiplied by the material was changed. Data from the
EPA proposed to addresses several STAF, could be used for Part 75 modified sorbent trap system would not
issues regarding the use of sorbent trap reporting. have been acceptable for Part 75
monitoring systems for the Section 7.2.3 of Appendix K requires reporting until the RATA is passed,
measurement and reporting of Hg mass that for each hour of the data collection with one exception, i.e., data collected
emissions. When this monitoring option period, the ratio of the stack gas flow during a successful diagnostic RATA
is selected, paired sorbent traps are rate to the sample flow rate through test period could be reported as quality-
required to measure the effluent Hg each sorbent trap must be maintained assured.
concentration. If the two Hg within ±25 percent of the initial ratio Finally, revisions to section 7.2.3 of
concentrations measured by the paired established in the first hour of the data Appendix K were proposed, requiring
traps meet the required relative collection period. However, the rule has that the sample flow rate through a
deviation (RD) specification in stated that when this criterion is not sorbent trap monitoring system must be
Appendix K of Part 75, and if each trap met, the appropriate consequences are zero when the unit is not operating. EPA
individually meets certain other QA to be determined on a ‘‘case-by-case’’ believes this clarification is needed to
requirements of Appendix K, then the basis. EPA has reconsidered this prevent the system from sampling
two Hg concentrations are averaged approach and now believes that it ambient air during periods when the
arithmetically and the average value is allows for inconsistent application of combustion unit is off-line, which
used to determine the Hg mass the sorbent trap monitoring would artificially lower the Hg
emissions in each hour of the data methodology. Therefore, the Agency concentrations measured by the sorbent
collection period. However, in cases proposed to revise Table K–1 to specify traps, resulting in under-reporting of Hg
where either or both of the traps fails to that a sample is invalidated if either: (a) mass emissions.
meet the acceptance criteria, § 75.15(h) More than 5 percent of the hourly ratios;
and Table K–1 in Appendix K specify or (b) more than 5 hourly ratios in the
consequences of varying severity. In the data collection period (whichever is less The commenters generally favored the
months following promulgation of these restrictive) fail to meet the ±25 percent proposal to add a 20 percent alternative
rule provisions, EPA revisited them and acceptance criterion. Further, if only relative deviation (RD) specification for
concluded that some of the one of the paired traps is able to meet sources with low Hg emissions (≤ 1.0
µg/m3). However, concerns were paragraph (l) questioned why data 40 CFR Part 60 (see: 72 FR p.32710). For
expressed that even a 20 percent RD collected by the modified sorbent trap certain affected units (some of which are
specification might be difficult to meet system are considered invalid prior to also subject to Part 75), these rule
when emissions are exceptionally low. the diagnostic RATA. The commenters revisions either require or allow a
For instance, following a flue gas requested that EPA revise paragraph (l) particulate matter (PM) monitoring
desulfurization system, the Hg emission to allow data collected prior to the system to be used in lieu of an opacity
levels can be as low as 0.1 to 0.2 µg/m3. diagnostic RATA to be reported as valid monitor (e.g., see §§ 60.49Da(t), and
One commenter suggested that the if the RATA is passed. The commenters’ 60.48b(j)).
allowable RD for low emitters should be suggestion is reasonable and has been
either 20 percent or 0.03 µg/m3 absolute incorporated into the final rule. A Summary of Rule Changes
difference, whichever is less restrictive passed diagnostic RATA demonstrates Today’s rule incorporates the
(see section 2.9.2 of the Response to that the change in sorbent material has commenter’s recommendation, as new
Comments document). EPA agrees with not significantly affected the monitoring paragraph (e) in § 75.14. The Agency
this comment and has incorporated the system’s ability to accurately measure believes that this revision to Part 75 is
0.03 µg/m3 alternative RD specification Hg emissions. Therefore, § 75.15(l) non-controversial and is consistent with
into both Appendix K (for sorbent trap allows the data from the modified EPA’s ongoing commitment to
monitoring systems), and § 75.22 (for sorbent trap system to be considered harmonization of the Part 60 and Part 75
the Ontario Hydro Method and EPA conditionally valid according to continuous monitoring regulations.
Method 29). § 75.20(b)(3), for up to 720 unit or stack
The commenters were divided on the 2. Default Moisture Values for Hg
operating hours after switching to a new
proposed single trap adjustment factor Monitoring
type of sorbent material. If the
(STAF) provisions. Two commenters diagnostic RATA is passed within the Background
supported the proposed amendments 720 operating hour window, the data For dry-basis Hg CEMS and sorbent
and four others objected to them. Those recorded by the modified system prior trap monitoring systems, the hourly Hg
objecting expressed concern that to the RATA may be reported as quality- emissions data must be corrected for the
applying the proposed STAF value of assured. If the RATA is failed, no data stack gas moisture content. This
1.222 in cases where one trap meets all from the modified system may be requirement can be met by using one of
of the QA requirements is unnecessarily reported as quality-assured until a the fuel-specific default moisture values
punitive. Several of the commenters subsequent RATA is passed. If the specified in Part 75. Several places in
recommended that the STAF value diagnostic RATA is not completed § 75.80, § 75.81, and Appendix K state
should be 1.111, which would be within the allotted 720 operating hour that for the purposes of Hg monitoring,
consistent with the averaging that is window but is passed on the first a default moisture value from § 75.11(b)
performed when the results of both attempt, data from the modified system or § 75.12(b) may be used in lieu of
traps are available and would are considered to be invalid from the installing a continuous moisture
appropriately weight the results of the first hour after the expiration of the 720 monitoring system. However, the
valid trap (see section 4.3 of the operating hour window until the reference to § 75.12(b) is incorrect. Only
Response to Comments document for completion of the RATA. the default moisture values in § 75.11(b)
further discussion). After careful No comments were received on the are appropriate for Hg monitoring
consideration of the comments, EPA has following proposed amendments: (1)
decided to incorporate the commenters’ applications. Equation F–29, the only
The proposal to allow the higher Hg Hg mass emissions equation with a
suggestion regarding the value of the concentration to be reported when the
STAF. Therefore, the single-trap moisture correction term, is structurally
RD criterion for the paired sorbent traps similar to Equation F–2 for SO2 mass
adjustment factor provisions have been is not met; (2) the proposed acceptance
finalized as proposed, except that the emissions. The default moisture values
criteria for the hourly ratios of stack gas in § 75.11(b) are the ones that apply to
value of the STAF is 1.111. flow rate to sample flow rate; and (3) the
Regarding proposed paragraphs (k) Equation F–2. Hence, they apply also to
proposal to require the sample flow rate Equation F–29. The default moisture
and (l) in § 75.15, EPA has reconsidered through a sorbent trap monitoring
its position and has withdrawn the values in § 75.12(b) are used for NOX
system to be zero when the affected unit emission rate calculations, and several
requirement for the sorbent traps used is off-line. Therefore, these provisions
for RATA testing to be the same size as of them are not applicable to Hg mass
have been finalized, as proposed. emissions monitoring.
the traps used for daily operation of the
monitoring system. Accordingly, the O. Other Rule revisions Summary of Rule Changes
proposed requirement to perform a 1. Particulate Matter Monitoring
diagnostic RATA when the trap size is All references to the default moisture
Systems values in § 75.12(b) have been removed
changed has also been withdrawn. The
Agency is finalized paragraph (k) as part Background from § 75.80, § 75.81, and Appendix K.
of a direct-final rulemaking on EPA received a comment that was 3. Hg Stratification Testing
September 7, 2007 (72 FR 51494– outside the scope of the proposed rule,
51531). Paragraph (k) requires only that Background
requesting that units with installed
the type of sorbent material used for the particulate matter (PM) monitoring To support the Clean Air Mercury
RATAs be the same as the sorbent systems be exempted from the opacity Regulation (CAMR), which was
material used for daily operation. monitoring requirements of § 75.14. published in 2005 (see: 70 FR 28606,
Today’s rule finalizes paragraph (l) of May 18, 2005), EPA added Hg
§ 75.15, to require a diagnostic RATA Summary of Rule Changes monitoring provisions to Part 75, among
within 720 operating hours whenever a Although the comment was outside which were revisions to § 75.22(a) and
new type of sorbent material begins to the scope of this rulemaking and no to section 6.5.10 of Appendix A,
be used in the traps (e.g., using response is required, EPA believes that specifying ASTM D6784–02, the
brominated carbon instead of iodated it has merit in light of June 13, 2007 ‘‘Ontario Hydro Method’’, as the
carbon). Commenters on proposed amendments to Subparts Da and Db of appropriate reference method for
measuring Hg concentration. On August historically, most testers have opted to reporting requirements in 40 CFR Part
22, 2006 EPA proposed to add Method perform stratification testing at scrubbed 75, which are mandatory for all sources
29 (which is similar to Ontario Hydro) stacks to justify sampling along a 3- subject to the Acid Rain Program under
to Part 75, as an alternative Hg reference point short line (or at a single point), Title IV of the Clean Air Act and certain
method. Most recently, in a direct-final which greatly simplifies the test other emissions trading programs
action on September 7, 2007. EPA procedures, in that all measurements administered by EPA. All information
published two more alternative can be made at one test port, using a submitted to EPA pursuant to the
reference methods (RMs) for measuring probe of reasonable length. recordkeeping and reporting
vapor phase Hg emissions, Method 30A Unfortunately, Part 75 does not have a requirements for which a claim of
(an instrumental method) and Method stratification test procedure for Hg, and, confidentiality is made is safeguarded
30B (a sorbent-based method). Today’s as previously noted, neither the Ontario according to Agency policies set forth in
rule allows the use of Methods 29, 30A, Hydro Method nor Method 29 has any 40 CFR Part 2, subpart B. The
and 30B as alternatives to the Ontario stratification test provisions—but there preexisting Part 75 rule requirements
Hydro Method (see the revisions to is a Hg stratification test procedure in amended in this final rule are covered
§ 75.22(a) and Section 6.5.10 of Method 30A. by existing ICRs for the Acid Rain
Appendix A). EPA anticipates that in Program (EPA ICR number 1633.14;
2008 and beyond, all four of the Hg Summary of Rule Changes
OMB control number 2060–0258), the
reference methods in Part 75 will be In view of these considerations, EPA NOX SIP Call (EPA ICR number 1857.04;
used, to a greater or lesser extent, for the has deemed it necessary to revise OMB number 2060–0445), and the
Hg emission testing required under Section 6.5.6(c) of Appendix A, to cross- Clean Air Interstate Rule (EPA ICR
§§ 75.81(c) and (d) and for RATAs of Hg reference the Hg stratification test number 2152.02; OMB number 2060–
monitoring systems. provisions in Sections 8.1.3 through 0570). The separate ICR for the final rule
For Hg emission tests, Methods 30A 8.1.3.5 of Method 30A. Further, revisions addresses the one-time costs
and 30B require 12 sampling points § 75.22(a)(7) has been revised to address necessary for sources to review the rule
(located according to EPA Method 1) for RM sample point location and revisions and adapt their recordkeeping
each test run, unless the results of a Hg stratification testing when the Ontario and reporting systems to the revised
stratification test justify using fewer Hydro Method or Method 29 is used for requirements. The EPA believes that the
points. The Ontario Hydro Method and the Hg low mass emission testing long term implications of the rule
Method 29 each require a minimum of required under §§ 75.81(c) and (d). For revisions will be to reduce the ongoing
12 sample points and do not include that particular application, revised burdens and costs associated with Part
any stratification test provisions or § 75.22(a)(7) requires the sampling 75 compliance, but those impacts will
alternative sampling point location points to be located according to Section be addressed as EPA renews the
criteria. 8.1 of Method 30A and cross-references individual program ICRs. The annual
For the RATAs of Part 75 Hg the stratification test provisions in monitoring, reporting, and
monitoring systems, when Methods 30A sections 8.1.3 through 8.1.3.5 of Method recordkeeping burden for this collection
and 30B are used, both methods defer to 30A. (averaged over the first 3 years after the
the RM point selection and location These amendments to Appendix A effective date of the final rule) is
procedures described in Part 75, and § 75.22 provide a consistent estimated to be 124,976 labor hours per
Appendix A, section 6.5.6 and approach to stratification testing and year at a total annual cost of $8,581,420.
Performance Specification 2 (PS2) in RM sampling point location for Hg This estimate includes burdens for rule
Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 60. This is emission testing and Hg monitoring review, recordkeeping and reporting
the familiar sampling approach that system RATAs, irrespective of which Hg
allows the use of a ‘‘short’’ 3-point software upgrades, and software
reference method is used for the testing. debugging activities, as well as the
measurement line at locations where
stratification is not expected, but II. Statutory and Executive Order capital costs of upgrading recordkeeping
requires the use of a 3-point ‘‘long’’ Reviews and reporting software.
measurement line (which includes a Burden means the total time, effort, or
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory financial resources expended by persons
point at the center of the stack) at
Planning and Review to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
locations where stratification is
suspected (e.g., after a wet scrubber), This action is not a ‘‘significant or provide information to or for a
unless the results of a stratification test regulatory action’’ under the terms of Federal agency. This includes the time
justify using the 3-point short line (or Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR needed to review instructions; develop,
perhaps a single sampling point). As an 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore acquire, install, and utilize technology
alternative, Part 75 allows the use of six not subject to review under the EO. and systems for the purposes of
Method 1 sampling points located along collecting, validating, and verifying
B. Paperwork Reduction Act information, processing and
a diameter, at any test location
(including those where stratification is The information collection maintaining information, and disclosing
suspected). This same RM sampling requirements in the final rule have been and providing information; adjust the
point location methodology applies to submitted for approval to OMB under existing ways to comply with any
Hg RATAs in which the Ontario Hydro the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. previously applicable instructions and
Method or Method 29 is used as the 3501 et seq. The Information Collection requirements; train personnel to be able
reference method. Request (ICR) document prepared by to respond to a collection of
However, when testing is performed EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number information; search data sources;
downstream of a scrubber, measuring at 2203.02. The information collection complete and review the collection of
the center of a large-diameter stack is requirements are not enforceable until information; and transmit or otherwise
extremely difficult logistically, and OMB approves them. disclose the information. An Agency
testing at 6 points along a diameter may The information requirements are may not conduct or sponsor, and a
not be possible for certain test platform based on the revisions to the person is not required to respond to a
and test port configurations. Therefore, monitoring, recordkeeping, and collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control existing electronic data reporting requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
number. The OMB control numbers for software used under this program, the the UMRA.
EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed long term effects of these revisions will EPA has determined that this rule
in 40 CFR Part 9. When this ICR is be to allow continued efficient contains no regulatory requirements that
approved by OMB, the Agency will electronic data submittals that should might significantly or uniquely affect
publish a technical amendment to 40 act to relieve some of the long term small governments. The revisions
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to reporting burdens for affected sources, primarily make certain changes EPA has
display the OMB control number for the which include some small entities. determined are necessary as part of
approved information collection upgrading the data systems used to
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act manage data submitted under the
requirements contained in this final
rule. Title II of the Unfunded Mandates program and to streamline the methods
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. for sources to report their information.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 104–4, establishes requirements for The revisions also clarify certain issues
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Federal agencies to assess the effects of that have been raised during ongoing
generally requires an agency to prepare their regulatory actions on State, local, implementation of the existing rule and
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any and tribal governments and the private update the information on various
rule subject to notice and comment sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, voluntary consensus standards
rulemaking requirements under the EPA generally must prepare a written incorporated by reference in the rule.
Administrative Procedure Act or any statement, including a cost-benefit Some States do have programs that rely
other statute unless the agency certifies analysis, for proposed and final rules on the monitoring provisions in 40 CFR
that the rule will not have a significant with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may Part 75, and States may incur some costs
economic impact on a substantial result in expenditures to State, local, associated with reviewing the
number of small entities. Small entities and tribal governments, in the aggregate, modifications to Part 75, but the rule
include small businesses, small or to the private sector, of $100 million revisions and the impact on the States
organizations, and small governmental or more in any one year. Before are not significant.
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing promulgating an EPA rule for which a
the impacts of today’s rule on small written statement is needed, section 205 E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A of the UMRA generally requires EPA to Executive Order 13132, entitled
small business as defined by the SBA’s identify and consider a reasonable ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a number of regulatory alternatives and 1999), requires EPA to develop an
small governmental jurisdiction that is a adopt the least costly, most cost accountable process to ensure
government of a city, county, town, effective or least burdensome alternative ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
school district or special district with a that achieves the objectives of the rule. and local officials in the development of
population of less than 50,000; and (3) The provisions of section 205 do not regulatory policies that have federalism
a small organization that is any not-for- apply when they are inconsistent with implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
profit enterprise which is independently applicable law. Moreover, section 205 federalism implications’’ is defined in
owned and operated and is not allows EPA to adopt an alternative other the Executive Order to include
dominant in its field. than the least costly, most cost-effective, regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
After considering the economic or least burdensome alternative if the effects on the States, on the relationship
impacts of today’s final rule on small Administrator publishes with the final between the national government and
entities, I certify that this action will not rule an explanation why that alternative the States, or on the distribution of
have a significant economic impact on was not adopted. Before EPA establishes power and responsibilities among the
a substantial number of small entities. any regulatory requirements that may various levels of government.’’ This
In determining whether a rule has a significantly or uniquely affect small final rule does not have federalism
significant economic impact on small governments, including tribal implications. It will not have substantial
entities, the impact of concern is any governments, it must have developed direct effects on the States, on the
significant adverse economic impact on under section 203 of the UMRA a small relationship between the national
small entities, since the primary government agency plan. The plan must government and the States, or on the
purpose of the regulatory flexibility provide for notifying potentially distribution of power and
analysis is to identify and address affected small governments, enabling responsibilities among the various
regulatory alternatives ‘‘which minimize officials of affected small governments levels of government, as specified in
any significant economic impact of the to have meaningful and timely input in Executive Order 13132. These rule
rule on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and the development of EPA regulatory revisions represent minor adjustments
604. Thus, an agency may certify that a proposals with significant Federal to existing regulations. The revisions
rule will not have a significant intergovernmental mandates, and primarily make certain changes EPA has
economic impact on a substantial informing, educating, and advising determined are necessary as part of
number of small entities if the rule small governments on compliance with upgrading the data systems used to
relieves regulatory burden or otherwise the regulatory requirements. EPA has manage data submitted under the
has a positive economic effect on all of determined that this final rule does not program and to streamline the methods
the small entities subject to the rule. contain a Federal mandate that may for sources to report their information.
These final rule revisions represent result in expenditures of $100 million or The revisions also clarify certain issues
minor changes to existing monitoring more for State, local, and tribal that have been raised during ongoing
requirements used in EPA emission governments in the aggregate, or to the implementation of the existing rule and
trading programs and we expect these private sector in any 1 year, nor does update the information on various
revisions to reduce the economic this rule significantly or uniquely voluntary consensus standards
burden for affected entities in the long impact small governments, because it incorporated by reference in the rule.
term. contains no requirements that impose Some States do have programs that rely
Although there will be some small new obligations upon them. Thus, this on the monitoring provisions in 40 CFR
level of up front costs to reprogram final rule is not subject to the Part 75, and States may incur some costs
associated with reviewing the Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 Agency promulgating the rule must
modifications to Part 75, but the rule FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is submit a rule report, which includes a
revisions and the impact on the States not a significant regulatory action under copy of the rule, to each House of the
are not significant. Thus, Executive Executive Order 12866. Congress and to the Comptroller General
Order 13132 does not apply to this final of the United States. EPA will submit a
I. National Technology Transfer and
rule. report containing this rule and other
Advancement Act
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation required information to the U.S. Senate,
Section 12(d) of the National
and Coordination With Indian Tribal the U.S. House of Representatives, and
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Governments Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. the Comptroller General of the United
Executive Order 13175, entitled 104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 States prior to publication of the rule in
‘‘Consultation and Coordination With note) directs EPA to use voluntary the Federal Register. A major rule
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR consensus standards in its regulatory cannot take effect until 60 days after it
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA activities unless to do so would be is published in the Federal Register.
to develop an accountable process to inconsistent with applicable law or This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by otherwise impractical. Voluntary defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule
tribal officials in the development of consensus standards are technical will be effective on January 24, 2008 for
regulatory policies that have tribal standards (e.g., materials specifications, good cause found as explained in this
implications.’’ This final rule does not test methods, sampling procedures, and rule.
have tribal implications, as specified in business practices) that are developed or
Executive Order 13175. It will not have adopted by voluntary consensus L. Petitions for Judicial Review
substantial direct effects on tribal standards bodies. The NTTAA directs Under Clean Air Act section 307(b)(1),
governments, on the relationship EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, petitions for judicial review of this
between the Federal government and explanations when the Agency decides
action must be filed in the United States
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of not to use available and applicable
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
power and responsibilities between the voluntary consensus standards. This
circuit by March 24, 2008. Filing a
Federal government and Indian tribes. rule includes updated information on a
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not number of voluntary consensus petition for reconsideration by the
apply to this final rule. standards previously included in 40 Administrator of this final rule does not
CFR Part 75, as well as the addition of affect the finality of this rule for the
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of purposes of judicial review, nor does it
certain other voluntary consensus
Children From Environmental Health extend the time within which a petition
standards.
and Safety Risks for judicial review may be filed, and
Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of J. Executive Order 12898: Federal shall not postpone the effectiveness of
Children From Environmental Health Actions To Address Environmental such a rule or action. This action may
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, Justice in Minority Populations and not be challenged later in proceedings to
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: Low-Income Populations
enforce its requirements. (See section
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 307(b)(2) of the Administrative
significant’’ as defined under Executive (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal Procedures Act.)
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an executive policy on environmental
environmental health or safety risk that justice. Its main provision directs M. Determination Under Section 307(d)
EPA has reason to believe may have a federal agencies, to the greatest extent
Pursuant to Clean Air Act section
disproportionate effect on children. If practicable and permitted by law, to
the regulatory action meets both criteria, make environmental justice part of their 307(d)(1)(U), the Administrator
the Agency must evaluate the mission by identifying and addressing, determines that this action is subject to
environmental health or safety effects of as appropriate, disproportionately high the provisions of section 307(d). Section
the planned rule on children, and and adverse human health or 307(d)(1)(U) provides that the
explain why the planned regulation is environmental effects of their programs, provisions of section 307(d) apply to
preferable to other potentially effective policies, and activities on minority ‘‘such other actions as the Administrator
and reasonably feasible alternatives populations and low-income may determine.’’ While the
considered by the Agency. EPA populations in the United States. EPA Administrator did not make this
interprets Executive Order 13045 as has determined that this final rule will determination earlier, the Administrator
applying only to those regulatory not have disproportionately high and believes that all of the procedural
actions that are based on health or safety adverse human health or environmental requirements, e.g., docketing, hearing
risks, such that the analysis required effects on minority or low-income and comment periods, of section 307(d)
under section 5–501 of the Order has populations because it does not affect have been complied with during the
the potential to influence the regulation. the level of protection provided to course of this rulemaking.
This rule is not subject to Executive human health or the environment. This
Order 13045 because it does not final rule does not affect or relax the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 72 and
establish an environmental standard control measures on sources impacted 75
intended to mitigate health or safety by emission trading programs that rely Environmental protection, Acid rain,
risks. on monitoring under 40 CFR Part 75.
Administrative practice and procedure,
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That K. Congressional Review Act Air pollution control, Carbon dioxide,
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
The Congressional Review Act, 5 Continuous emission monitoring,

Distribution, or Use U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Electric utilities, Incorporation by
This rule is not subject to Executive Business Regulatory Enforcement reference, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting
Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
Regulations That Significantly Affect that before a rule may take effect, the oxides.
Dated: December 19, 2007. certification with the EPA Traceability Specialty gas producer means an
Stephen L. Johnson, Protocol or distributing gases as ‘‘EPA organization that prepares and analyzes
Administrator. Protocol Gas’’ must participate in the compressed gas mixtures for use as
■ For the reasons set forth in the EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program. calibration gases and that offers the
preamble, parts 72 and 75 of chapter I Non-participating vendors may not use mixtures for sale to end users or to
of title 40 of the Code of Federal ‘‘EPA’’ in any form of advertising for third-party vendors for resale to end
Regulations are amended as follows: these products, unless approved by the users.
Administrator. * * * * *
PART 72—PERMITS REGULATION EPA Protocol Gas Verification
Program means the EPA Protocol Gas PART 75—CONTINUOUS EMISSION
■ 1. The authority citation for part 72 audit program described in Section MONITORING
continues to read as follows: 2.1.10 of the ‘‘EPA Traceability Protocol
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7601 and 7651, et seq. for Assay and Certification of Gaseous ■ 3. The authority citation for Part 75
Calibration Standards,’’ September continues to read as follows:
Subpart A—Acid Rain Program 1997, EPA–600/R–97/121 (EPA Protocol Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7601, and 7651k, and
General Provisions Procedure) or such revised procedure as 7651k note.
approved by the Administrator.
■ 2. Section 72.2 is amended as follows: Subpart A—General
■ a. Revising the definition of ‘‘Capacity * * * * *
factor’’; Excepted monitoring system means a
monitoring system that follows the ■ 4. Section 75.4 is amended by revising
■ b. In the definition of ‘‘Diluent cap’’, paragraph (d) to read as follows:
by removing the words ‘‘, CO2 mass procedures and requirements of § 75.15
emission rate, or heat input rate,’’ after of this chapter, § 75.19 of this chapter, § 75.4 Compliance dates.
the words ‘‘NOX emission rate’’; § 75.81(b) of this chapter or of appendix * * * * *
■ c. In the definition of ‘‘EPA protocol D, or E to part 75 for approved (d) This paragraph, applies to affected
gas’’, by adding a new sentence to the exceptions to the use of continuous units under the Acid Rain Program and
end of the definition; emission monitoring systems. to units subject to a State or Federal
■ d. Revising the definition of * * * * * pollutant mass emissions reduction
‘‘Excepted monitoring system’’; Long-term cold storage means the program that adopts the emission
■ e. Adding the new definitions in complete shutdown of a unit intended monitoring and reporting provisions of
alphabetical order for ‘‘Air Emission to last for an extended period of time (at this part. In accordance with § 75.20, for
Testing Body (AETB)’’, ‘‘EPA Protocol least two calendar years) where notice an affected unit which, on the
Gas Verification Program’’, ‘‘Long-term for long-term cold storage is provided applicable compliance date, is either in
cold storage’’, ‘‘NIST traceable under § 75.61(a)(7). long-term cold storage (as defined in
elemental Hg standards’’, ‘‘NIST * * * * * § 72.2 of this chapter) or is shut down
traceable source of oxidized Hg’’, NIST traceable elemental Hg as the result of a planned outage or a
‘‘Qualified Individual’’, and ‘‘Specialty standards means either: forced outage, thereby preventing the
gas producer’’; and (1) Compressed gas cylinders having required continuous monitoring system
■ f. Removing the definition for known concentrations of elemental Hg, certification tests from being completed
‘‘Research gas material (RGM)’’ which have been prepared according to
The revisions and additions read as by the compliance date, the owner or
the ‘‘EPA Traceability Protocol for operator shall provide notice of such
follows: Assay and Certification of Gaseous unit storage or outage in accordance
§ 72.2 Definitions. Calibration Standards’’; or with § 75.61(a)(3) or § 75.61(a)(7), as
(2) Calibration gases having known applicable. For the planned and
* * * * *
Air Emission Testing Body (AETB) concentrations of elemental Hg, unplanned unit outages described in
means a company or other entity that produced by a generator that fully meets this paragraph, the owner or operator
conducts Air Emissions Testing as the performance requirements of the shall ensure that all of the continuous
described in ASTM D7036–04 ‘‘EPA Traceability Protocol for monitoring systems for SO2, NOX, CO2,
(incorporated by reference under § 75.6 Qualification and Certification of Hg, opacity, and volumetric flow rate
of this part). Elemental Mercury Gas Generators’’. required under this part (or under the
* * * * * * * * * * applicable State or Federal mass
Capacity factor means either: NIST traceable source of oxidized Hg emissions reduction program) are
(1) The ratio of a unit’s actual annual means a generator that: Is capable of installed and that all required
electric output (expressed in MWe/hr) providing known concentrations of certification tests are completed no later
to the unit’s nameplate capacity (or vapor phase mercuric chloride (HgCl2), than 90 unit operating days or 180
maximum observed hourly gross load and that fully meets the performance calendar days (whichever occurs first)
(in MWe/hr) if greater than the requirements of the ‘‘EPA Traceability after the date that the unit recommences
nameplate capacity) times 8760 hours; Protocol for Qualification and commercial operation, notice of which
or Certification of Oxidized Mercury Gas date shall be provided under
(2) The ratio of a unit’s annual heat Generators’’. § 75.61(a)(3) or § 75.61(a)(7), as
input (in million British thermal units * * * * * applicable. The owner or operator shall
or equivalent units of measure) to the Qualified Individual means an determine and report SO2 concentration,
unit’s maximum rated hourly heat input individual who meets the requirements NOX emission rate, CO2 concentration,
rate (in million British thermal units per as described in ASTM D7036–04, Hg concentration, and flow rate data (as
hour or equivalent units of measure) ‘‘Standard Practice for Competence of applicable) for all unit operating hours
times 8,760 hours. Air Emission Testing Bodies’’ after the applicable compliance date
* * * * * (incorporated by reference under § 75.6 until all of the required certification
EPA protocol gas * * * On and after of this part). tests are successfully completed, using
January 1, 2009, vendors advertising * * * * * either:
(1) The maximum potential ‘‘High-Temperature’’, in paragraph 96’’, and also by removing the word
concentration of SO2 (as defined in (a)(12); ‘‘By’’ and adding in its place, ‘‘by’’, in
section 2.1.1.1 of appendix A to this ■ m. Removing ‘‘D1826–88’’ and adding paragraph (a)(29);
part), the maximum potential NOX in its place ‘‘D1826–94 (Reapproved ■ dd. Removing and reserving
emission rate, as defined in § 72.2 of 1998)’’, in paragraph (a)(13); paragraph (a)(30);
this chapter, the maximum potential ■ n. Removing ‘‘D1945–91’’ and adding ■ ee. Removing ‘‘D3588–91’’ and adding
flow rate, as defined in section 2.1.4.1 in its place ‘‘D1945–96 (Reapproved in its place ‘‘D3588–98’’, and also by
of appendix A to this part, the 2001)’’, in paragraph (a)(14); removing the phrase, ‘‘(Specific
maximum potential Hg concentration, ■ o. Adding the phrase ‘‘(Reapproved Gravity)’’, in paragraph (a)(31);
as defined in section 2.1.7.1 of appendix 2006)’’ after ‘‘D1946–90’’, in paragraph ■ ff. Removing ‘‘D4052–91’’ and adding
A to this part, or the maximum potential (a)(15); in its place ‘‘D4052–96 (Reapproved
■ p. Removing and reserving paragraph 2002)’’, in paragraph (a)(32);
CO2 concentration, as defined in section
2.1.3.1 of appendix A to this part; or (a)(16); ■ gg. Removing ‘‘D4057–88’’ and adding
■ q. Removing ‘‘D2013–86’’ and adding in its place ‘‘D4057–95 (Reapproved
(2) The conditional data validation
in its place ‘‘D2013–01’’, and also by 2000)’’, in paragraph (a)(33);
provisions of § 75.20(b)(3); or
removing the phrase, ‘‘Method of’’, and ■ hh. Removing ‘‘D4177–82
(3) Reference methods under
adding in its place, ‘‘Practice for’’, in (Reapproved 1990)’’ and adding in its
§ 75.22(b); or
paragraph (a)(17); place ‘‘D4177–95 (Reapproved 2000)’’,
(4) Another procedure approved by
■ r. Removing and reserving paragraph in paragraph (a)(34);
the Administrator pursuant to a petition
(a)(18); ■ ii. Removing ‘‘D4239–85’’ and adding
under § 75.66. ■ s. Removing ‘‘D2234–89’’ and adding in its place ‘‘D4239–02’’, and also by
* * * * * in its place ‘‘D2234–00’’, and also by removing the phrase ‘‘High
■ 5. Section 75.6 is amended by: removing the phrase ‘‘Test Methods’’, Temperature’’, and adding in its place
■ a. Removing ‘‘D129–91’’ and adding and adding in its place, ‘‘Practice’’, in ‘‘High-Temperature’’, in paragraph
in its place ‘‘D129–00’’, in paragraph paragraph (a)(19); (a)(35);
(a)(1); ■ t. Removing and reserving paragraph ■ jj. Removing ‘‘D4294–90’’ and adding
■ b. Removing ‘‘D240–87 (Reapproved (a)(20); in its place ‘‘D4294–98’’, adding the
1991)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘D240– ■ u. Removing ‘‘D2502–87’’ and adding words ‘‘and Petroleum’’ after the word
00’’, in paragraph (a)(2); in its place ‘‘D2502–92 (Reapproved ‘‘Petroleum’’, by removing the word ‘‘X-
■ c. Removing ‘‘D287–82 (Reapproved 1996)’’, in paragraph (a)(21); Ray’’ and adding in its place, ‘‘X-ray’’,
1987)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘D287– ■ v. Removing ‘‘D2503–82 (Reapproved and by removing the word
92 (Reapproved 2000)’’, in paragraph 1987)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘D2503– ‘‘Spectroscopy’’ and adding in its place,
(a)(3); 92 (Reapproved 1997)’’, and also by ‘‘Spectrometry’’ in paragraph (a)(36);
■ d. Removing ‘‘D388–92’’ and adding removing the phrase ‘‘Molecular Weight ■ kk. Removing the phrase
in its place ‘‘D388–99’’, in paragraph (Relative Molecular Mass)’’, and by ‘‘(Reapproved 1989)’’ and adding in its
(a)(4); adding in its place, ‘‘Relative Molecular place the phrase ‘‘(Reapproved 2006)’’,
■ e. Removing and reserving paragraph Mass (Molecular Weight)’’, in paragraph in paragraph (a)(37);
(a)(5); (a)(22); ■ ll. Removing ‘‘(reapproved 2004)’’,
■ w. Removing ‘‘D2622–92’’ and adding and adding in its place, ‘‘(Reapproved
■ f. Removing ‘‘D1072–90’’ and adding
in its place ‘‘D1072–06’’, and also by in its place ‘‘D2622–98’’, and also by 2004)’’, in paragraph (a)(38);
adding the phrase ‘‘by Combustion and removing the phrase ‘‘X-Ray ■ mm. Adding the phrase ‘‘(Reapproved
Barium Chloride Titration’’ after the Spectrometry’’, and adding in its place 2006)’’ after ‘‘D4891–89’’, in paragraph
word ‘‘Gases’’, in paragraph (a)(6); ‘‘Wavelength Dispersive X-ray (a)(39);
■ g. Removing ‘‘D1217–91’’ and adding
Fluorescence Spectrometry’’, in ■ nn. Removing ‘‘D5291–92’’ and
paragraph (a)(23); adding in its place ‘‘D5291–02’’, in
in its place ‘‘D1217–93 (Reapproved
■ x. Removing ‘‘D3174–89’’ and adding paragraph (a)(40);
1998)’’, in paragraph (a)(7);
in its place ‘‘D3174–00’’, and also by ■ oo. Removing ‘‘D5373–93’’, and
■ h. Removing the phrase ‘‘(Reapproved
removing the word ‘‘From’’ and adding adding in its place ‘‘D5373–02
1990)’’, and by removing ‘‘D1250–80’’ in its place ‘‘from’’, in paragraph (a)(24); (Reapproved 2007)’’ and adding the
and adding in its place ‘‘D1250–07’’, ■ y. Adding the phrase ‘‘(Reapproved word ‘‘Test’’ after the word ‘‘Standard’’,
and also by adding the phrase ‘‘Use of 2002)’’ after ‘‘D3176–89’’, in paragraph in paragraph (a)(41);
the’’ after the first occurrence of the (a)(25); ■ pp. Removing ‘‘D5504–94’’ and
word ‘‘for’’, in paragraph (a)(8); ■ z. Removing ‘‘D3177–89’’ and adding adding in its place ‘‘D5504–01’’, in
■ i. Removing the phrase ‘‘D1298–85 in its place the phrase ‘‘ D3177–02 paragraph (a)(42);
(Reapproved 1990), Standard Practice (Reapproved 2007)’’ in paragraph ■ qq. Adding new paragraphs (a)(45),
for Density, Relative Density (Specific (a)(26); (a)(46), (a)(47), (a)(48), and (a)(49);
Gravity)’’ and adding in its place ■ aa. Removing ‘‘ D3178–89 (1997), ■ rr. Removing the phrase ‘‘ASME
‘‘D1298–99, Standard Test Method for ‘‘Standard Test Methods for Carbon and MFC–3M–1989 with September 1990
Density, Relative Density (Specific Hydrogen in the Analysis Sample of Errata’’ and adding in its place the
Gravity),’’, in paragraph (a)(9); Coal and Coke’’ and adding in its place phrase ‘‘ASME MFC–3M–2004
■ j. Removing ‘‘D1480–91’’ and adding ‘‘D5373–02 (Reapproved 2007) Standard (Revision of ASME MFC–3M–1989
in its place ‘‘D1480–93 (Reapproved Test Methods for Instrumental (R1995))’’, in paragraph (b)(1);
1997)’’, in paragraph (a)(10); Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen, and ■ ss. Removing the date ‘‘1990’’ and
■ k. Removing ‘‘D1481–91’’ and adding Nitrogen in Laboratory Samples of Coal adding in its place the date ‘‘1997’’ in
in its place ‘‘D1481–93 (Reapproved and Coke’’ in paragraph (a)(27); the parenthetical, in paragraph (b)(2);
1997)’’, in paragraph (a)(11); ■ bb. Removing ‘‘D3238–90’’ and adding ■ tt. Adding the phrase ‘‘(Reaffirmed
■ l. Removing ‘‘D1552–90’’ and adding in its place ‘‘D3238–95 (Reapproved 1994)’’ after ‘‘ASME–MFC–5M–1985,’’,
in its place ‘‘D1552–01’’, and also by 2000)’’, in paragraph (a)(28); in paragraph (b)(3);
removing the phrase, ‘‘High ■ cc. Removing ‘‘D3246–81 (Reapproved ■ uu. Removing the phrase ‘‘1987 with
Temperature’’ and adding in its place 1987)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘D3246– June 1987 Errata’’ and adding in its
place the number ‘‘1998’’ at the end of Measurement of Liquid Hydrocarbons in combusts only gaseous fuel, determine
‘‘MFC–6M–’’, and also by removing Stationary Pressurized Storage Tanks by SO2 emissions in accordance with
‘‘Flow Meters’’ and adding in its place, Automatic Tank Gauging, First Edition paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(3) of this section,
‘‘Flowmeters’’, in paragraph (b)(4); June 1996; Section 4—Standard Practice as applicable.
■ vv. Removing the phrase ‘‘with for Level Measurement of Liquid (1) If the gaseous fuel qualifies for a
December 1989 Errata’’ and adding in its Hydrocarbons on Marine Vessels by default SO2 emission rate under Section
place the phrase ‘‘(Reaffirmed 2001)’’, in Automatic Tank Gauging, First Edition 2.3.1.1, 2.3.2.1.1, or 2.3.6(b) of appendix
paragraph (b)(6); April 1995 (Reaffirmed, March 2006); D to this part, the owner or operator
■ ww. Removing the number ‘‘86’’ and and Section 5—Standard Practice for may determine SO2 emissions by using
adding in its place the number ‘‘96’’ at Level Measurement of Light Equation F–23 in appendix F to this
the end of ‘‘GPA Standard 2172–’’, in Hydrocarbon Liquids Onboard Marine part. Substitute into Equation F–23 the
paragraph (d)(1); Vessels by Automatic Tank Gauging, hourly heat input, calculated using the
■ xx. Removing the number ‘‘90’’ and First Edition March 1997 (Reaffirmed, certified flow monitoring system and
adding in its place the number ‘‘00’’ at March 2003); for § 75.19. the certified diluent monitor (according
the end of ‘‘GPA Standard 2261–00’’, in * * * * * to the applicable equation in section 5.2
paragraph (d)(2); (3) American Petroleum Institute of appendix F to this part), in
■ yy. Revising paragraphs (f)(1) and conjunction with the appropriate
(API) Manual of Petroleum
(f)(3); and Measurement Standards, Chapter 4— default SO2 emission rate from section
■ zz. Adding new paragraph (f)(4). 2.3.1.1, 2.3.2.1.1, or 2.3.6(b) of appendix
Proving Systems, Section 2—Pipe
The revisions and additions read as D to this part. When this option is
Provers (Provers Accumulating at Least
follows: chosen, the owner or operator shall
10,000 Pulses), Second Edition, March
§ 75.6 Incorporation by reference. 2001, and Section 5—Master-Meter perform the necessary data acquisition
Provers, Second Edition, May 2000, for and handling system tests under
* * * * *
(a) * * * appendix D to this part. § 75.20(c), and shall meet all quality
(45) ASTM D6667–04, Standard Test (4) American Petroleum Institute control and quality assurance
Method for Determination of Total (API) Manual of Petroleum requirements in appendix B to this part
Volatile Sulfur in Gaseous Measurement Standards, Chapter 22— for the flow monitor and the diluent
Hydrocarbons and Liquefied Petroleum Testing Protocol, Section 2—Differential monitor; or
Gases by Ultraviolet Fluorescence, for Pressure Flow Measurement Devices (2) [Reserved]
appendix D of this part. (First Edition, August 2005), for (3) The owner or operator may
(46) ASTM D4809–00, Standard Test appendix D to this part. determine SO2 mass emissions by using
Method for Heat of Combustion of ■ 6. Section 75.11 is amended by: a certified SO2 continuous monitoring
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb ■ a. Revising the heading of the section; system, in conjunction with the certified
Calorimeter (Precision Method), for ■ b. Adding the phrase ‘‘and 14.0% for flow rate monitoring system. However,
appendices D and F of this part. natural gas (boilers, only);’’ after the if the gaseous fuel is very low sulfur fuel
(47) ASTM D5865–01a, Standard Test word ‘‘wood;’’, in paragraph (b)(1); (as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter), the
Method for Gross Calorific Value of Coal ■ c. Revising paragraph (d)(3); SO2 monitoring system shall meet the
and Coke, for appendices A, D, and F of ■ d. Revising paragraphs (e) following quality assurance provisions
this part. introductory text and (e)(1); when the very low sulfur fuel is
(48) ASTM D7036–04, Standard ■ e. Removing and reserving paragraph combusted:
Practice for Competence of Air Emission (e)(2); * * * * *
Testing Bodies, for appendices A, B, and ■ f. Revising paragraph (e)(3) (4) The provisions in paragraph (e)(1)
E of this part. introductory text; of this section, may also be used for the
(49) ASTM D5453–06, Standard Test ■ g. Add new paragraph (e)(4); and combustion of a solid or liquid fuel that
■ h. Revising paragraph (f). meets the definition of very low sulfur
Method for Determination of Total
Sulfur in Light Hydrocarbons, Spark The revisions and additions read as fuel in § 72.2 of this chapter, mixtures
Ignition Engine Fuel, Diesel Engine follows: of such fuels, or combinations of such
Fuel, and Engine Oil by Ultraviolet § 75.11 Specific provisions for monitoring fuels with gaseous fuel, if the owner or
Fluorescence, for appendix D of this SO2 emissions. operator submits a petition under
part. * * * * * § 75.66 for a default SO2 emission rate
* * * * * (d) * * * for each fuel, mixture or combination,
(f) * * * (3) By using the low mass emissions and if the Administrator approves the
(1) American Petroleum Institute excepted methodology in § 75.19(c) for petition.
(API) Manual of Petroleum estimating hourly SO2 mass emissions if (f) Other units. The owner or operator
Measurement Standards, Chapter 3— the affected unit qualifies as a low mass of an affected unit that combusts wood,
Tank Gauging, Section 1A, Standard emissions unit under § 75.19(a) and (b). refuse, or other material in addition to
Practice for the Manual Gauging of If this option is selected for SO2, the oil or gas shall comply with the
Petroleum and Petroleum Products, LME methodology must also be used for monitoring provisions for coal-fired
Second Edition, August 2005; Section NOX and CO2 when these parameters units specified in paragraph (a) of this
1B—Standard Practice for Level are required to be monitored by section, except where the owner or
Measurement of Liquid Hydrocarbons in applicable program(s). operator has an approved petition to use
Stationary Tanks by Automatic Tank (e) Special considerations during the the provisions of paragraph (e)(1) of this
Gauging, Second Edition June 2001; combustion of gaseous fuels. The owner section.
Section 2—Standard Practice for or operator of an affected unit that uses ■ 7. Section 75.12 is amended by:
Gauging Petroleum and Petroleum a certified flow monitor and a certified ■ a. Revising the section heading;
Products in Tank Cars, First Edition, diluent gas (O2 or CO2) monitor to ■ b. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ before
August 1995 (Reaffirmed March 2006); measure the unit heat input rate shall, the number ‘‘15.0%’’, and by adding the
Section 3—Standard Practice for Level during any hours in which the unit phrase ‘‘; and 18.0% for natural gas
(boilers, only)’’ after the word ‘‘wood’’, using the results of the analyses in § 75.16 Special provisions for monitoring
in paragraph (b); and conjunction with contemporaneous emissions from common, bypass, and
■ c. Revising paragraph (e)(3). hourly data recorded by a certified stack multiple stacks for SO2 emissions and heat
input determinations.
The revisions read as follows: flow monitor, corrected for the stack gas
moisture content. For each pair of * * * * *
§ 75.12 Specific provisions for monitoring
sorbent traps analyzed, the average of (b) * * *
NOX emission rate. (1) * * *
the two Hg concentrations shall be used
* * * * * (ii) Install, certify, operate, and
for reporting purposes under ( 75.84(f). maintain an SO2 continuous emission
(e) * * * Notwithstanding this requirement, if,
(3) Use the low mass emissions monitoring system and flow monitoring
due to circumstances beyond the control system in the common stack and
excepted methodology in § 75.19(c) for of the owner or operator, one of the
estimating hourly NOX emission rate combine emissions for the affected units
paired traps is accidentally lost, for recordkeeping and compliance
and hourly NOX mass emissions, if
damaged, or broken and cannot be purposes.
applicable under § 75.19(a) and (b). If
analyzed, the results of the analysis of
this option is selected for NOX, the LME * * * * *
the other trap may be used for reporting
methodology must also be used for SO2 ■ 12. Section 75.17 is amended by
purposes, provided that:
and CO2 when these parameters are revising paragraph (d)(2) to read as
required to be monitored by applicable (1) The other trap has met all of the follows:
program(s). applicable quality-assurance
requirements of this part; and § 75.17 Special provisions for monitoring
* * * * * emissions from common, bypass, and
■ 8. Section 75.13 is amended by (2) The Hg concentration measured by multiple stacks for NOX emission rate.
revising paragraph (d)(3) to read as the other trap is multiplied by a factor
of 1.111. * * * * *
follows: (d) * * *
* * * * * (2) Install, certify, operate, and
§ 75.13 Specific provisions for monitoring
CO2 emissions. (l) Whenever the type of sorbent maintain a NOX-diluent CEMS only on
material used by the traps is changed, the main stack. If this option is chosen,
* * * * * it is not necessary to designate the
(d) * * * the owner or operator shall conduct a
diagnostic RATA of the modified exhaust configuration as a multiple
(3) Use the low mass emissions
sorbent trap monitoring system within stack configuration in the monitoring
excepted methodology in § 75.19(c) for
720 unit or stack operating hours after plan required under § 75.53, with
estimating hourly CO2 mass emissions,
the date and hour when the new sorbent respect to NOX or any other parameter
if applicable under § 75.19(a) and (b). If
material is first used. If the diagnostic that is monitored only at the main stack.
this option is selected for CO2, the LME
RATA is passed, data from the modified For each unit operating hour in which
methodology must also be used for NOX
system may be reported as quality- the bypass stack is used and the
and SO2 when these parameters are
assured, back to the date and hour when emissions are either uncontrolled (or the
required to be monitored by applicable
the new sorbent material was first used. add-on controls are not documented to
program(s).
If the RATA is failed, all data from the be operating properly), report the
■ 9. Section 75.14 is amended by adding
modified system shall be invalidated, maximum potential NOX emission rate
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
back to the date and hour when the new (as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter).
§ 75.14 Specific provisions for monitoring sorbent material was first used, and data The maximum potential NOX emission
opacity. from the system shall remain invalid rate may be specific to the type of fuel
* * * * * until a subsequent RATA is passed. If combusted in the unit during the bypass
(e) Unit with a certified particulate the required RATA is not completed (see § 75.33(c)(8)). Alternatively, for a
matter (PM) monitoring system. If, for a within 720 unit or stack operating unit with NOX add-on emission
particular affected unit, the owner or hours, but is passed on the first attempt, controls, for each unit operating hour in
operator installs, certifies, operates, data from the modified system shall be which the bypass stack is used and the
maintains, and quality-assures a invalidated beginning with the first add-on NOX emission controls are not
continuous particulate matter (PM) operating hour after the 720 unit or bypassed, the owner or operator may
monitoring system in accordance with stack operating hour window expires report the maximum controlled NOX
Procedure 2 in appendix F to part 60 of and data from the system shall remain emission rate (MCR) instead of the
this chapter, the unit shall be exempt invalid until the date and hour of maximum potential NOX emission rate
from the opacity monitoring completion of the successful RATA. provided that the add-on controls are
requirement of this part. documented to be operating properly, as
■ 11. Section 75.16 is amended by: described in the quality assurance/
■ 10. Section 75.15 is amended by:
■ a. Removing the reference ‘‘(j)’’ and
■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii); quality control program for the unit,
adding the reference ‘‘(l)’’ in its place in ■ b. Adding the word ‘‘rate’’ after the
required by section 1 in appendix B of
the introductory paragraph; phrase ‘‘report heat input’’ in the last this part. To provide the necessary
■ b. Revising paragraph (h); and sentence, in paragraph (e)(1); and documentation, the owner or operator
■ c. Adding paragraph (l).
shall record parametric data to verify
■ c. In the second sentence of the proper operation of the NOX add-on
The revisions and additions read as paragraphs (e)(3) by removing both
follows: emission controls as described in
occurrences of the phrase ‘‘steam flow’’ § 75.34(d). Furthermore, the owner or
§ 75.15 Special provisions for measuring and adding in its place the phrase operator shall calculate the MCR using
‘‘steam load’’ and adding the phrase ‘‘or
Hg mass emissions using the excepted the procedure described in section

sorbent trap monitoring methodology. mmBtu/hr thermal output’’ inside the 2.1.2.1(b) of appendix A to this part
* * * * * parentheses, after the phrase ‘‘in 1000 where the words ‘‘maximum potential
(h) The hourly Hg mass emissions for lb/hr’’, in paragraph (e)(3). NOX emission rate (MER)’’ shall apply
each collection period are determined The revisions read as follows: instead of the words ‘‘maximum
controlled NOX emission rate (MCR)’’ specific SO2 emission factor may be between 75 and 100 percent of the
and by using the NOX MEC in the used in lieu of the applicable emission maximum sustainable load.
calculations instead of the NOX MPC. factor from Table LM–1, if a federally (4) The retest of any LME unit may be
■ 13. Section 75.19 is amended by: enforceable permit condition is in place performed at a single load between 75
■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); that limits the sulfur content of the oil. and 100 percent of the maximum
■ b. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(i); If this alternative is chosen, the fuel- sustainable load if, for the three
■ c. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(A)(3); specific SO2 emission rate in lb/mmBtu calendar years immediately preceding
■ d. Removing the words ‘‘Method 20’’ shall be calculated by multiplying the the year of the retest (or, if applicable,
from paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(A)(4); fuel sulfur content limit (weight percent the three ozone seasons immediately
■ e. Removing the words ‘‘Method 20’’ sulfur) by 1.01. In addition, the owner preceding the date of the retest), the
from the definition of NOX obs in the or operator shall periodically determine applicable capacity factor requirements
nomenclature for Equation LM–1a the sulfur content of the oil combusted described in paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(I)(3) of
under paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(A); in the unit, using one of the oil this section are met.
■ f. Adding the phrase, ‘‘that meets the sampling and analysis options described (5) Alternatively, for combustion
quality assurance requirements of in section 2.2 of appendix D to this part, turbines, the single-load testing
either: this part, or appendix F to part and shall keep records of these fuel described in paragraphs (c)(1)(iv)(I)(3)
60 of this chapter, or a comparable State sampling results in a format suitable for and (c)(1)(iv)(I)(4) of this section may be
CEM program,’’ after the abbreviation inspection and auditing. Alternatively, performed at the highest attainable load
‘‘CEMS’’, in paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(G); the required oil sampling and associated level corresponding to the season of the
■ g. Adding paragraphs (c)(1)(iv)(I)(3), recordkeeping may be performed using year in which the testing is conducted.
(4), (5) and (6); a consensus standard (e.g., ASTM, API, (6) In all cases where the alternative
■ h. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B)(2); etc.) that is prescribed in the unit’s single-load testing option described in
■ i. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(H); Federally-enforceable operating permit, paragraphs (c)(1)(iv)(I)(3) through
■ j. Removing the words ‘‘from Table in an applicable State regulation, or in (c)(1)(iv)(I)(5) of this section is used, the
LM–1 of this section’’ from the first owner or operator shall keep records
another applicable Federal regulation. If
sentence of paragraph (c)(4)(i)(A); documenting that the required capacity
the unit combusts gaseous fuel(s) other
■ k. Revising the heading for paragraph factor requirements were met.
than natural gas, the owner or operator
(c)(4)(ii); and shall use the procedures in section 2.3.6 * * * * *
■ l. Adding paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(D).
of appendix D to this part to document (3) * * *
The revisions and additions read as (ii) * * *
the total sulfur content of each such fuel
follows: (B) * * *
and to determine the appropriate default (2) American Petroleum Institute
§ 75.19 Optional SO2, NOX, and CO2 SO2 emission rate for each such fuel. (API) Manual of Petroleum
emissions calculation for low mass * * * * * Measurement Standards, Chapter 3-
emissions units. (iv) * * * Tank Gauging, Section 1A, Standard
* * * * * (A) * * * Practice for the Manual Gauging of
(a) * * * (3) Do not correct the NOX Petroleum and Petroleum Products,
(1) For units that meet the concentration to 15% O2. Second Edition, August 2005; Section
requirements of this paragraph (a)(1) * * * * * 1B-Standard Practice for Level
and paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) of this (I) * * * Measurement of Liquid Hydrocarbons in
section, the low mass emissions (LME) (3) The initial appendix E testing may Stationary Tanks by Automatic Tank
excepted methodology in paragraph (c) be performed at a single load, between Gauging, Second Edition June 2001;
of this section may be used in lieu of 75 and 100 percent of the maximum Section 2-Standard Practice for Gauging
continuous emission monitoring sustainable load defined in the Petroleum and Petroleum Products in
systems or, if applicable, in lieu of monitoring plan for the unit, if the Tank Cars, First Edition, August 1995
methods under appendices D, E, and G average annual capacity factor of the (Reaffirmed March 2006); Section 3-
to this part, for the purpose of LME unit, when calculated according to Standard Practice for Level
determining unit heat input, NOX, SO2, the definition of ‘‘capacity factor’’ in Measurement of Liquid Hydrocarbons in
and CO2 mass emissions, and NOX § 72.2 of this chapter, is 2.5 percent or Stationary Pressurized Storage Tanks by
emission rate under this part. If the less for the three calendar years Automatic Tank Gauging, First Edition
owner or operator of a qualifying unit immediately preceding the year of the June 1996 (Reaffirmed, March 2001);
elects to use the LME methodology, it testing, and that the annual capacity Section 4-Standard Practice for Level
must be used for all parameters that are factor does not exceed 4.0 percent in Measurement of Liquid Hydrocarbons
required to be monitored by the any of those three years. Similarly, for on Marine Vessels by Automatic Tank
applicable program(s). For example, for a LME unit that reports emissions data Gauging, First Edition April 1995
an Acid Rain Program LME unit, the on an ozone season-only basis, the (Reaffirmed, September 2000); and
methodology must be used to estimate initial appendix E testing may be Section 5-Standard Practice for Level
SO2, NOX, and CO2 mass emissions, performed at a single load between 75 Measurement of Light Hydrocarbon
NOX emission rate, and unit heat input. and 100 percent of the maximum Liquids Onboard Marine Vessels by
* * * * * sustainable load if the 2.5 and 4.0 Automatic Tank Gauging, First Edition
(c) * * * percent capacity factor requirements are March 1997 (Reaffirmed, March 2003);
(1) * * * met for the three ozone seasons for § 75.19; Shop Testing of Automatic
(i) If the unit combusts only natural immediately preceding the date of the Liquid Level Gages, Bulletin 2509 B,
gas and/or fuel oil, use Table LM–1 of emission testing (see § 75.74(c)(11)). For December 1961 (Reaffirmed August
this section to determine the a group of identical LME units, any 1987, October 1992) (all incorporated by
appropriate SO2 emission rate for use in unit(s) in the group that meet the 2.5 reference under § 75.6 of this part); or
calculating hourly SO2 mass emissions and 4.0 percent capacity factor * * * * *
under this section. Alternatively, for requirements may perform the initial (H) For each low mass emissions unit
fuel oil combustion, a lower, fuel- appendix E testing at a single load or each low mass emissions unit in a
group of identical units, the owner or recorded under paragraph (c)(2) of this elects to report only during the ozone
operator shall determine the cumulative section and shall be determined using season, the quarterly cumulative load
quarterly unit load in megawatt hours or Equations LM–5 or LM–6. For a unit for the second calendar quarter of the
thousands of pounds of steam. The subject to the provisions of subpart H of year shall include only the unit loads
quarterly cumulative unit load shall be this part, which is not required to report for the months of May and June.
the sum of the hourly unit load values emission data on a year-round basis and
MW qtr = ∑
all − hours
MW Eq. LM-5 (for MW output)
STqtr = ∑
all − hours
ST Eq. LM-6 (for steam output)
Where: separately on the NOX pollutant chapter must be used to measure total
MWqtr = Sum of all unit operating loads concentration monitor and the diluent NOX emissions, both NO and NO2, for
recorded during the quarter by the unit gas monitor); and purposes of this part. The owner or
(MWh). * * * * * operator shall not use the following
STfuel-qtr = Sum of all hourly steam loads sections, exceptions, and options of
recorded during the quarter by the unit § 75.21 [Amended] method 7E in appendix A–4 to part 60
(klb of steam/hr).
MW = Unit operating load for a particular ■ 15. Section 75.21 is amended by of this chapter:
unit operating hour (MWh). removing the words ‘‘or (e)(2)’’ at the (i) Section 7.1 of the method allowing
ST = Unit steam load for a particular unit end of the first sentence of paragraph for use of prepared calibration gas
operating hour (klb of steam). (a)(4). mixtures that are produced in
* * * * * ■ 16. Section 75.22 is amended by: accordance with method 205 in
(4) * * * ■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory Appendix M of 40 CFR Part 51;
(ii) NOX mass emissions and NOX text; (ii) The sampling point selection
emission rate. ■ b. Revising paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(6), procedures in section 8.1 of the method,
(D) The quarterly and cumulative and (a)(7); for the emission testing of boilers and
NOX emission rate in lb/mmBtu (if ■ c. Revising paragraph (b) introductory combustion turbines under appendix E
required by the applicable program(s)) text; to this part. The number and location of
shall be determined as follows. ■ d. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ at the the sampling points for those
Calculate the quarterly NOX emission end of paragraph (b)(3); applications shall be as specified in
rate by taking the arithmetic average of ■ e. Revising paragraph (b)(5); sections 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.2.2 of appendix
all of the hourly EFNOX values. Calculate ■ f. Adding paragraphs (b)(6), (b)(7), and E to this part;
the cumulative (year-to-date) NOX (b)(8); and (iii) Paragraph (3) in section 8.4 of the
emission rate by taking the arithmetic ■ g. Revising paragraph (c)(1) method allowing for the use of a multi-
average of the quarterly NOX emission introductory text. hole probe to satisfy the multipoint
rates. The revisions and additions read as traverse requirement of the method;
* * * * * follows: (iv) Section 8.6 of the method
allowing for the use of ‘‘Dynamic
■ 14. Section 75.20 is amended by: § 75.22 Reference test methods. Spiking’’ as an alternative to the
■ a. Adding a new sentence after the (a) The owner or operator shall use interference and system bias checks of
third sentence of paragraph (b) the following methods, which are found the method. Dynamic spiking may be
introductory text; in appendix A–4 to part 60 of this
■ b. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(v); and
conducted (optionally) as an additional
chapter or have been published by quality assurance check.
■ c. Removing paragraphs (f)(1) and
ASTM, to conduct the following tests: (6) Method 3A in appendix A–2 and
(f)(2). monitoring system tests for certification
The revisions and additions read as method 7E in appendix A–4 to part 60
or recertification of continuous emission of this chapter are the reference
follows:
monitoring systems and excepted methods for determining NOX and
§ 75.20 Initial certification and monitoring systems under appendix E to diluent emissions from stationary gas
recertification procedures. this part; the emission tests required turbines for testing under appendix E to
* * * * * under § 75.81(c) and (d); and required this part.
(b) * * * The owner or operator shall quality assurance and quality control (7) ASTM D6784–02, Standard Test
also recertify the continuous emission tests: Method for Elemental, Oxidized,
monitoring systems for a unit that has * * * * * Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in
recommenced commercial operation (5) Methods 6, 6A, 6B or 6C, and 7, Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired
following a period of long-term cold 7A, 7C, 7D or 7E in appendix A–4 to Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro
storage as defined in § 72.2 of this part 60 of this chapter, as applicable, are Method) (incorporated by reference
chapter. * * * the reference methods for determining under § 75.6 of this part) is the reference
ER24JA08.017</MATH>
* * * * * SO2 and NOX pollutant concentrations. method for determining Hg

(c) * * * (Methods 6A and 6B in appendix A–4 concentration.

(1) * * * to part 60 of this chapter may also be (i) Alternatively, Method 29 in
(v) A cycle time test, (where, for the used to determine SO2 emission rate in appendix A–8 to part 60 of this chapter
NOX-diluent continuous emission lb/mmBtu.) Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or may be used, with these caveats: The
ER24JA08.016</MATH>
monitoring system, the test is performed 7E in appendix A–4 to part 60 of this procedures for preparation of Hg
standards and sample analysis in Procedure)’’ and Method 30B, ■ 18. Section 75.32 is amended by
sections 13.4.1.1 through 13.4.1.3 ASTM ‘‘Determination of Total Vapor Phase revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
D6784–02 (incorporated by reference Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired
under § 75.6 of this part) shall be Combustion Sources Using Carbon § 75.32 Determination of monitor data
availability for standard missing data
followed instead of the procedures in Sorbent Traps’’. procedures.
sections 7.5.33 and 11.1.3 of Method 29 (iv) When Method 29 in appendix A–
in appendix A–8 to part 60 of this 8 to part 60 of this chapter or ASTM * * * * *
chapter, and the QA/QC procedures in D6784–02 (incorporated by reference (b) The monitor data availability shall
section 13.4.2 of ASTM D6784–02 under § 75.6 of this part) is used for the be calculated for each hour during each
(incorporated by reference under § 75.6 Hg emission testing required under missing data period. The owner or
of this part) shall be performed instead §§ 75.81(c) and (d), locate the reference operator shall record the percent
of the procedures in section 9.2.3 of method test points according to section monitor data availability for each hour
Method 29 in appendix A–8 to part 60 8.1 of Method 30A, and if Hg of each missing data period to
of this chapter. The tester may also opt stratification testing is part of the test implement the missing data substitution
to use the sample recovery and protocol, follow the procedures in procedures.
preparation procedures in ASTM sections 8.1.3 through 8.1.3.5 of Method * * * * *
D6784–02 (incorporated by reference 30A. ■ 19. Section 75.33 is amended by:
under § 75.6 of this part) instead of the (b) The owner or operator may use ■ a. Revising the section heading;
Method 29 in appendix A–8 to part 60 any of the following methods, which are ■ b. Removing the word ‘‘Whenever’’
of this chapter procedures, as follows: found in appendix A to part 60 of this and adding in its place the word ‘‘If’’,
sections 8.2.8 and 8.2.9.1 of Method 29 chapter or have been published by and by removing the words ‘‘each hour
in appendix A–8 to part 60 of this ASTM, as a reference method backup of each’’ and adding in its place the
chapter may be replaced with sections monitoring system to provide quality- words ‘‘that hour of the’’, in paragraph
13.2.9.1 through 13.2.9.3 of ASTM assured monitor data: (b)(1) introductory text;
D6784–02 (incorporated by reference * * * * * ■ c. Removing the word ‘‘Whenever’’
under § 75.6 of this part); sections (5) ASTM D6784–02, Standard Test and adding in its place the word ‘‘If’’,
8.2.9.2 and 8.2.9.3 of Method 29 in Method for Elemental, Oxidized, and by removing the words ‘‘each hour
appendix A–8 to part 60 of this chapter Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in of each’’ and adding in its place the
may be replaced with sections 13.2.10.1 Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired words ‘‘that hour of the’’, in paragraph
through 13.2.10.4 of ASTM D6784–02 Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro (b)(2) introductory text;
(incorporated by reference under § 75.6 Method) (incorporated by reference ■ d. Removing the word ‘‘Whenever’’
of this part); section 8.3.4 of Method 29 under § 75.6 of this part) for and adding in its place the word ‘‘If’’,
in appendix A–8 to part 60 of this determining Hg concentration; and by removing the word ‘‘each’’ and
chapter may be replaced with section (6) Method 29 in appendix A–8 to adding in its place the words ‘‘that hour
13.3.4 or 13.3.6 of ASTM D6784–02 (as part 60 of this chapter for determining of the’’, in paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4);
appropriate) (incorporated by reference Hg concentration; ■ e. Removing the word ‘‘Whenever’’
under § 75.6 of this part); and section (7) Method 30A for determining Hg and adding in its place the word ‘‘If’’,
8.3.5 of Method 29 in appendix A–8 to concentration; and and by removing the words ‘‘each hour
part 60 of this chapter may be replaced (8) Method 30B for determining Hg of each’’ and adding in its place the
with section 13.3.5 or 13.3.6 of ASTM concentration. words ‘‘that hour of the’’, in paragraphs
D6784–02 (as appropriate) (incorporated (c)(1) Instrumental EPA Reference (c)(1) introductory text, (c)(2)
by reference under § 75.6 of this part). Methods 3A, 6C, and 7E in appendices introductory text, (c)(3), and (c)(4);
(ii) Whenever ASTM D6784–02 A–2 and A–4 of part 60 of this chapter ■ f. Revising paragraph (c)(8)(iii);
(incorporated by reference under § 75.6 shall be conducted using calibration ■ g. Revising Tables 1 and 2 in
of this part) or Method 29 in appendix gases as defined in section 5 of paragraph (c)(8)(iv);
A–8 to part 60 of this chapter is used, appendix A to this part. Otherwise, ■ h. Removing the word ‘‘Whenever’’
paired sampling trains are required. To performance tests shall be conducted and adding in its place the word ‘‘If’’,
validate a RATA run or an emission test and by removing the words ‘‘each hour
and data reduced in accordance with
run, the relative deviation (RD), of each’’ and adding in its place the
the test methods and procedures of this
calculated according to section 11.7 of words ‘‘that hour of the’’, in paragraphs
part unless the Administrator:
appendix K to this part, must not exceed (d)(1) introductory text, (d)(2)
10 percent, when the average * * * * *
introductory text, (d)(3) introductory
concentration is greater than 1.0 µg/m3. ■ 17. Section 75.31 is amended by
text, and (d)(4) introductory text.
If the average concentration is ≤1.0 µg/ adding a sentence to the end of ■ i. Revising Table 3 in paragraph (e)(3);
m3, the RD must not exceed 20 percent. paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows: and
The RD results are also acceptable if the The revisions and additions read as
§ 75.31 Initial missing data procedures.
absolute difference between the Hg follows:
concentrations measured by the paired * * * * *
trains does not exceed 0.03 µg/m3. If the (c) * * * § 75.33 Standard missing data procedures
RD criterion is met, the run is valid. For (3) * * * Alternatively, where a unit for SO2, NOX, Hg, and flow rate.
each valid run, average the Hg with add-on NOX emission controls can * * * * *
concentrations measured by the two demonstrate that the controls are (c) * * *
trains (vapor phase, only). operating properly during the hour, as (8) * * *
(iii) Two additional reference provided in § 75.34(d), the owner or (iii) For the purposes of providing
methods that may be used to measure operator may substitute, as applicable, substitute data under paragraph (c)(4) of
Hg concentration are: Method 30A, the maximum controlled NOX emission this section, a separate, fuel-specific
‘‘Determination of Total Vapor Phase rate (MCR) or the maximum expected maximum potential concentration
Mercury Emissions from Stationary NOX concentration (MEC). (MPC), maximum potential NOX
Sources (Instrumental Analyzer * * * * * emission rate (MER), or maximum
potential flow rate (MPF) value (as highest emission rate or flow rate (as combusted in the unit. The exact
applicable) shall be determined for each applicable). Furthermore, for a unit with methodology used to determine each
type of fuel combusted in the unit, in a add-on NOX emission controls, a fuel-specific MPC, MER, MEC, MCR or
manner consistent with § 72.2 of this separate fuel-specific maximum MPF value shall be documented in the
chapter and with section 2.1.2.1 or controlled NOX emission rate (MCR) or monitoring plan for the unit or stack.
2.1.4.1 of appendix A to this part. For maximum expected NOX concentration
(iv) * * *
co-firing, the MPC, MER or MPF value (MEC) value (as applicable) shall be
shall be based on the fuel with the determined for each type of fuel
TABLE 1.—MISSING DATA PROCEDURE FOR SO2 CEMS, CO2 CEMS, MOISTURE CEMS, HG CEMS, AND DILUENT (CO2
OR O2) MONITORS FOR HEAT INPUT DETERMINATION
Trigger conditions Calculation routines
Duration (N) of CEMS

Monitor data availability outage Method Lookback period
(percent) (hours) 2
95 or more (90 or more for Hg) ............................ N ≤ 24 .......................... Average .............................................................. HB/HA.
N > 24 .......................... For SO2, CO2, Hg, and H2O **, the greater of:
Average ....................................................... HB/HA.
90th percentile ............................................. 720 hours.*
For O2 and H2OX, the lesser of:
10th percentile ............................................. HB/HA.
720 hours.*
90 or more, but below 95 (> 80 but < 90 for Hg) N ≤ 8 ............................ Average .............................................................. HB/HA.
N > 8 ............................ For SO2, CO2, Hg, and H2O **, the greater of:
Average ....................................................... HB/HA.
95th percentile ............................................. 720 hours.*
For O2 and H2OX, the lesser of:
Average ....................................................... HB/HA.
5th Percentile .............................................. 720 hours.*
80 or more, but below 90 (> 70 but < 80 for Hg) N > 0 ............................ For SO2, CO2, Hg, and H2O: **
Maximum value 1 ......................................... 720 hours.*
For O2 and H2OX:
Minimum value 1 .......................................... 720 hours.*
Below 80 (Below 70 for Hg) ................................. N > 0 ............................ Maximum potential concentration 3 or % (for
SO2, CO2, Hg, and H2O **) or
Minimum potential concentration or % (for O2 None.
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.
1 Where a unit with add-on SO or Hg emission controls can demonstrate that the controls are operating properly during the missing data pe-
2
riod, 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.
3 Alternatively, where a unit with add-on SO or Hg emission controls can demonstrate that the controls are operating properly during the miss-
2
ing data period, as provided in § 75.34, the unit may report the greater of: (a) the maximum expected SO2 or Hg concentration or (b) 1.25 times
the maximum controlled value from the previous 720 quality-assured monitor operating hours.
X Use this algorithm for moisture except when Equation 19–3, 19–4 or 19–8 in Method 19 in appendix A–7 to part 60 of this chapter is used for
NOX emission rate.
** Use this algorithm for moisture only when Equation 19–3, 19–4 or 19–8 in Method 19 in appendix A–7 to part 60 of this chapter is used for
NOX emission rate.
TABLE 2.—LOAD-BASED MISSING DATA PROCEDURE FOR NOX-DILUENT CEMS, NOX CONCENTRATION CEMS AND FLOW
RATE CEMS
Monitor data availability Duration (N) of CEMS outage Method Lookback period Load ranges
(percent) (hours) 2
95 or more ............................. N ≤ 24 ................................... Average ................................. 2,160 hours * ......................... Yes.

N > 24 ................................... The greater of:
Average .......................... HB/HA ................................... No.
90th percentile ............... 2,160 hours * ......................... Yes.
90 or more, but below 95 ...... N ≤ 8 ..................................... Average ................................. 2,160 hours * ......................... Yes.
N > 8 ..................................... The greater of:
Average .......................... HB/HA ................................... No.
95th percentile ............... 2,160 hours * ......................... Yes.
80 or more, but below 90 ...... N > 0 ..................................... Maximum value 1 ................... 2,160 hours * ......................... Yes.
TABLE 2.—LOAD-BASED MISSING DATA PROCEDURE FOR NOX-DILUENT CEMS, NOX CONCENTRATION CEMS AND FLOW
RATE CEMS—Continued
Monitor data availability Duration (N) of CEMS outage Method Lookback period Load ranges
(percent) (hours) 2
Below 80 ................................ N > 0 ..................................... Maximum potential NOX None ...................................... No.
emission rate 3; or max-
imum potential NOX con-
centration 3; or maximum
potential flow rate.
HB/HA = hour before and hour after the CEMS outage.
* Quality-assured, monitor operating hours, using data at the corresponding load range (‘‘load bin’’) for each hour of the missing data period.
May be either fuel-specific or non-fuel-specific. For units that report data only for the ozone season, include only quality assured monitor oper-
ating hours within the ozone season in the lookback period. Use data from no earlier than three years prior to the missing data period.
1 Where a unit with add-on NO emission controls can demonstrate that the controls are operating properly during the missing data period, as
X
provided in § 75.34, the unit may use the maximum controlled NOX concentration or emission rate from the previous 2,160 quality-assured mon-
itor operating hours. Units with add-on controls that report NOX mass emissions on a year-round basis under subpart H of this part may use sep-
arate ozone season and non-ozone season data pools to provide substitute data values, as described in § 75.34(a)(2).
2 During unit operating hours.
3 Alternatively, where a unit with add-on NO emission controls can demonstrate that the controls are operating properly during the missing
X
data period, as provided in § 75.34, the unit may report the greater of: (a) the maximum expected NOX concentration (or maximum controlled
NOX emission rate, as applicable); or (b) 1.25 times the maximum controlled value at the corresponding load bin, from the previous 2,160 qual-
ity-assured monitor operating hours.
* * * * * (3) * * *
(e) * * *
TABLE 3.—NON-LOAD-BASED MISSING DATA PROCEDURE FOR NOX-DILUENT CEMS AND NOX CONCENTRATION CEMS
Duration (N) of CEMS

Monitor data availability outage Method Lookback period
(percent) (hours) 1
95 or more ............................................................ N ≤ 24 .......................... Average .............................................................. 2,160 hours.*

N > 24 .......................... 90th percentile .................................................... 2,160 hours.*
90 or more, but below 95 ..................................... N ≤ 8 ............................ Average .............................................................. 2,160 hours.*
N > 8 ............................ 95th percentile .................................................... 2,160 hours.*
80 or more, but below 90 ..................................... N > 0 ............................ Maximum value 3 ................................................ 2,160 hours.*
Below 80, or operational bin indeterminable ........ N > 0 ............................ Maximum potential NOX emission rate 2 or max- None.
imum potential NOX concentration 2.
* If operational bins are used, the lookback period is 2,160 quality-assured, monitor operating hours, and data at the corresponding operational
bin are used to provide substitute data values. If operational bins are not used, the lookback period is the previous 2,160 quality-assured monitor
operating hours. For units that report data only for the ozone season, include only quality-assured monitor operating hours within the ozone sea-
son in the lookback period. Use data from no earlier than three years prior to the missing data period.
1 During unit operation.
2 Alternatively, where a unit with add-on NO
X emission controls can demonstrate that the controls are operating properly, as provided in
§ 75.34, the unit may report the greater of: (a) the maximum expected NOX concentration, (or maximum controlled NOX emission rate, as appli-
cable); or (b) 1.25 times the maximum controlled value at the corresponding operational bin (if applicable), from the previous 2,160 quality-as-
sured monitor operating hours.
3 Where a unit with add-on NO emission controls can demonstrate that the controls are operating properly during the missing data period, as
X
provided in § 75.34, the unit may use the maximum controlled NOX concentration or emission rate from the previous 2,160 quality-assured mon-
itor operating hours. Units with add-on controls that report NOX mass emissions on a year-round basis under subpart H of this part may use sep-
arate ozone season and non-ozone season data pools to provide substitute data values, as described in § 75.34(a)(2).
* * * * * (a)(5) of this section; and §§ 75.31(c)(3), and/or NOX monitoring system(s) are
■ 20. Section 75.34 is amended by: 75.38(c), and 75.72(c)(3),’’. not obtained.
■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory The revisions and additions read as * * * * *
text; follows: (3) For each missing data hour in
■ b. In paragraph (a)(2)(ii) by removing which the percent monitor data
the words ‘‘and (c)(3)’’ and adding in its § 75.34 Units with add-on emission
controls. availability for SO2 or NOX, calculated
place the words ‘‘, (c)(3) and (c)(5) of in accordance with § 75.32, is less than
this section, and § 75.38(c),’’ (a) The owner or operator of an 90.0 percent and is greater than or equal
■ c. Revising paragraph (a)(3); affected unit equipped with add-on SO2 to 80.0 percent; and parametric data
■ d. Adding paragraph (a)(5); and and/or NOX emission controls shall establishes that the add-on emission
■ e. In paragraph (d) by removing the provide substitute data in accordance controls were operating properly (i.e.
words ‘‘paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(3) of with paragraphs (a)(1), through (a)(5) of within the range of operating parameters
this section,’’ and adding in its place the this section for each hour in which provided in the quality assurance/
words ‘‘paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3) and quality-assured data from the outlet SO2
quality control program) during the with the words ‘‘maximum controlled ■ e. Adding paragraph (f).
hour, the owner or operator may: NOX emission rate (MCR)’’ and the NOX The revisions and additions read as
(i) Replace the maximum SO2 MEC shall be used instead of the NOX follows:
concentration recorded in the 720 MPC.
§ 75.39 Missing data procedures for
quality-assured monitor operating hours * * * * * sorbent trap monitoring systems.
immediately preceding the missing data ■ 20. Section 75.38 is amended by (a) If a primary sorbent trap
period, with the maximum controlled revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as monitoring system has not been
SO2 concentration recorded in the follows. certified by the applicable compliance
previous 720 quality-assured monitor
date specified under a State or Federal
operating hours; or § 75.38 Standard missing data procedures
for Hg CEMS. Hg mass emission reduction program
(ii) Replace the maximum NOX
that adopts the requirements of subpart
concentration(s) or NOX emission rate(s) (a) Once 720 quality assured monitor I of this part, and if quality-assured Hg
from the appropriate load bin(s) (based operating hours of Hg concentration concentration data from a certified
on a lookback through the 2,160 quality- data have been obtained following backup Hg monitoring system, reference
assured monitor operating hours initial certification, the owner or method, or approved alternative
immediately preceding the missing data operator shall provide substitute data monitoring system are unavailable, the
period), with the maximum controlled for Hg concentration in accordance with owner or operator shall report the
NOX concentration(s) or emission rate(s) the procedures in ( 75.33(b)(1) through maximum potential Hg concentration,
from the appropriate load bin(s) in the (b)(4), except that the term ‘‘Hg as defined in section 2.1.7 of appendix
same 2,160 quality-assured monitor concentration’’ shall apply rather than A to this part, until the primary system
operating hour lookback period. ‘‘SO2 concentration,’’ the term ‘‘Hg is certified.
* * * * * concentration monitoring system’’ shall (b) For a certified sorbent trap system,
(5) For each missing data hour in apply rather than ‘‘SO2 pollutant a missing data period will occur in the
which the percent monitor data concentration monitor,’’ the term following circumstances, unless quality-
availability for SO2 or NOX, calculated ‘‘maximum potential Hg concentration, assured Hg concentration data from a
in accordance with § 75.32, is below as defined in section 2.1.7 of appendix certified backup Hg CEMS, sorbent trap
80.0 percent and parametric data A to this part’’ shall apply, rather than system, reference method, or approved
establish that the add-on emission ‘‘maximum potential SO2 alternative monitoring system are
controls were operating properly (i.e. concentration’’, and the percent monitor available:
within the range of operating parameters data availability trigger conditions (1) A gas sample is not extracted from
provided in the quality assurance/ prescribed for Hg in Table 1 of § 75.33 the stack during unit operation (e.g.,
quality control program),in lieu of shall apply rather than the trigger during a monitoring system malfunction
reporting the maximum potential value, conditions prescribed for SO2. or when the system undergoes
the owner or operator may substitute, as * * * * * maintenance); or
applicable, the greater of: (c) For units with FGD systems or (2) The results of the Hg analysis for
(i) The maximum expected SO2 add-on Hg emission controls, when the the paired sorbent traps are missing or
concentration or 1.25 times the percent monitor data availability is less invalid (as determined using the quality
maximum hourly controlled SO2 than 80.0 percent and is greater than or assurance procedures in appendix K to
concentration recorded in the previous equal to 70.0 percent, and a missing this part). The missing data period
720 quality-assured monitor operating data period occurs, consistent with begins with the hour in which the
hours; § 75.34(a)(3), for each missing data hour paired sorbent traps for which the Hg
(ii) The maximum expected NOX in which the FGD or Hg emission analysis is missing or invalid were put
concentration or 1.25 times the controls are documented to be operating into service. The missing data period
maximum hourly controlled NOX properly, the owner or operator may ends at the first hour in which valid Hg
concentration recorded in the previous report the maximum controlled Hg concentration data are obtained with
2,160 quality-assured monitor operating concentration recorded in the previous another pair of sorbent traps (i.e., the
hours at the corresponding unit load 720 quality-assured monitor operating hour at which this pair of traps was
range or operational bin; hours. In addition, when the percent placed in service), or with a certified
(iii) The maximum controlled hourly monitor data availability is less than backup Hg CEMS, reference method, or
NOX emission rate (MCR) or 1.25 times 70.0 percent and a missing data period approved alternative monitoring system.
the maximum hourly controlled NOX occurs, consistent with § 75.34(a)(5), for (c) Initial missing data procedures.
emission rate recorded in the previous each missing data hour in which the Use the missing data procedures in
2,160 quality-assured monitor operating FGD or Hg emission controls are § 75.31(b) until 720 hours of quality-
hours at the corresponding unit load documented to be operating properly, assured Hg concentration data have
range or operational bin; the owner or operator may report the been collected with the sorbent trap
(iv) For the purposes of implementing greater of the maximum expected Hg monitoring system(s), following initial
the missing data options in paragraphs concentration (MEC) or 1.25 times the certification.
(a)(5)(i) through (a)(5)(iii) of this section, maximum controlled Hg concentration (d) Standard missing data procedures.
the maximum expected SO2 and NOX recorded in the previous 720 quality- Once 720 quality-assured hours of data
concentrations shall be determined, assured monitor operating hours. The have been obtained with the sorbent
respectively, according to sections MEC shall be determined in accordance trap system(s), begin reporting the
2.1.1.2 and 2.1.2.2 of appendix A to this with section 2.1.7.1 of appendix A to percent monitor data availability in
part. The MCR shall be calculated this part. accordance with § 75.32 and switch
according to the basic procedure ■ 21. Section 75.39 is amended by: from the initial missing data procedures
described in section 2.1.2.1(b) of ■ a. Revising paragraph (a); in paragraph (c) of this section to the
appendix A to this part, except that the ■ b. Revising paragraph (b); standard missing data procedures in
words ‘‘maximum potential NOX ■ c. Revising paragraph (c); § 75.38.
emission rate (MER)’’ shall be replaced ■ d. Revising paragraph (d); and * * * * *
(f) In cases where the owner or (F) WAF no longer effective date and at the flow monitoring location (for
operator elects to use a primary Hg hour (if applicable); units with flow monitors, only). Also
CEMS and a certified redundant (or (G) WAF determination date; use appropriate codes to indicate the
non-redundant) backup sorbent trap (H) Number of WAF test runs; material(s) of construction and the
monitoring system (or vice-versa), when (I) Number of Method 1 traverse shape(s) of the stack or duct cross-
both the primary and backup points in the WAF test; section(s) at the flue exit and (if
monitoring systems are out-of-service (J) Number of test ports in the WAF applicable) at the flow monitor location;
and quality-assured Hg concentration test; and (D) The type(s) of fuel(s) fired by each
data from a temporary like-kind (K) Number of Method 1 traverse unit. Indicate the start and (if
replacement analyzer, reference method, points in the reference flow RATA. applicable) end date of combustion for
or approved alternative monitoring * * * * * each type of fuel, and whether the fuel
system are unavailable, the previous 720 (g) Contents of the monitoring plan. is the primary, secondary, emergency, or
quality-assured monitor operating hours The requirements of paragraphs (g) and startup fuel;
reported in the electronic quarterly (h) of this section shall be met on and (E) The type(s) of emission controls
report under § 75.64 shall be used for after January 1, 2009. Notwithstanding that are used to reduce SO2, NOX, Hg,
the required missing data lookback, this requirement, the provisions of and particulate emissions from each
irrespective of whether these data were paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section unit. Also provide the installation date,
recorded by the Hg CEMS, the sorbent may be implemented prior to January 1, optimization date, and retirement date
trap system, a temporary like-kind 2009, as follows. In 2008, the owner or (if applicable) of the emission controls,
replacement analyzer, a reference operator may opt to record and report and indicate whether the controls are an
method, or an approved alternative the monitoring plan information in original installation;
monitoring system. paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section, in (F) Maximum hourly heat input
lieu of recording and reporting the capacity of each unit; and
■ 22. Section 75.53 is amended by: (G) A non-load based unit indicator (if
■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); information in paragraphs (e) and (f) of
applicable) for units that do not produce
■ b. Removing the phrase ‘‘(d) or (f)’’ this section. Each monitoring plan shall
electrical or thermal output.
and adding in its place the phrase ‘‘(f) contain the information in paragraph (ii) For each monitored parameter
or (h)’’ in the second sentence of (g)(1) of this section in electronic format (e.g., SO2, NOX, flow, etc.) at each
paragraph (a)(2); and the information in paragraph (g)(2) monitoring location, specify the
■ c. Adding paragraph (e)(1)(xiv); and of this section in hardcopy format. monitoring methodology and the
■ d. Adding paragraphs (g) and (h). Electronic storage of all monitoring plan missing data approach for the
The revisions and additions read as information, including the hardcopy parameter. If the unmonitored bypass
follows: portions, is permissible provided that a stack approach is used for a particular
paper copy of the information can be parameter, indicate this by means of an
§ 75.53 Monitoring plan. furnished upon request for audit appropriate code. Provide the activation
(a) * * * purposes. date/hour, and deactivation date/hour
(1) The provisions of paragraphs (e) (1) Electronic. (i) The facility ORISPL (if applicable) for each monitoring
and (f) of this section shall be met number developed by the Department of methodology and each missing data
through December 31, 2008. The owner Energy and used in the National approach.
or operator shall meet the requirements Allowance Data Base (or equivalent (iii) For each required continuous
of paragraphs (a), (b), (e), and (f) of this facility ID number assigned by EPA, if emission monitoring system, each fuel
section through December 31, 2008, the facility does not have an ORISPL flowmeter system, each continuous
except as otherwise provided in number). Also provide the following opacity monitoring system, and each
paragraph (g) of this section. On and information for each unit and (as sorbent trap monitoring system (as
after January 1, 2009, the owner or applicable) for each common stack and/ defined in § 72.2 of this chapter),
operator shall meet the requirements of or pipe, and each multiple stack and/or identify and describe the major
paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (h) of this pipe involved in the monitoring plan: monitoring components in the
section only. In addition, the provisions (A) A representation of the exhaust monitoring system (e.g., gas analyzer,
in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section configuration for the units in the flow monitor, opacity monitor, moisture
that support a regulatory option monitoring plan. Provide the ID number sensor, fuel flowmeter, DAHS software,
provided in another section of this part of each unit and assign a unique ID etc.). Other important components in
must be followed if the regulatory number to each common stack, common the system (e.g., sample probe, PLC,
option is used prior to January 1, 2009. pipe multiple stack and/or multiple data logger, etc.) may also be
* * * * * pipe associated with the unit(s) represented in the monitoring plan, if
(e) * * * represented in the monitoring plan. For necessary. Provide the following
(1) * * * common and multiple stacks and/or specific information about each
(xiv) For each unit with a flow pipes, provide the activation date and component and monitoring system:
monitor installed on a rectangular stack deactivation date (if applicable) of each (A) For each required monitoring
or duct, if a wall effects adjustment stack and/or pipe; system:
factor (WAF) is determined and applied (B) Identification of the monitoring (1) Assign a unique, 3-character
to the hourly flow rate data: system location(s) (e.g., at the unit-level, alphanumeric identification code to the
(A) Stack or duct width at the test on the common stack, at each multiple system;
location, ft; stack, etc.). Provide an indicator (‘‘flag’’) (2) Indicate the parameter monitored
(B) Stack or duct depth at the test if the monitoring location is at a bypass by the system;
location, ft; stack or in the ductwork (breeching); (3) Designate the system as a primary,
(C) Wall effects adjustment factor (C) The stack exit height (ft) above redundant backup, non-redundant
(WAF), to the nearest 0.0001; ground level and ground level elevation backup, data backup, or reference
(D) Method of determining the WAF; above sea level, and the inside cross- method backup system, as provided in
(E) WAF Effective date and hour; sectional area (ft2) at the flue exit and § 75.10(e); and
(4) Indicate the system activation (C) Maximum expected value (if operating) level(s) and the two most
date/hour and deactivation date/hour applicable) and method of calculation; frequently-used load (or operating)
(as applicable). (D) Span value(s) and full-scale levels (as applicable); and
(B) For each component of each measurement range(s); (F) Activation and deactivation dates
monitoring system represented in the (E) Daily calibration units of measure; and hours, when the maximum hourly
monitoring plan: (F) Effective date/hour, and (if gross load, boundaries of the range of
(1) Assign a unique, 3-character applicable) inactivation date/hour of operation, normal load (or operating)
alphanumeric identification code to the each span value; level(s) or two most frequently-used
component; (G) An indication of whether dual load (or operating) levels change and are
(2) Indicate the manufacturer, model spans are required; and updated.
(H) The default high range value (if (viii) For each unit for which CEMS
and serial number;
applicable) and the maximum allowable are not installed:
(3) Designate the component type;
low-range value for this option. (A) Maximum hourly gross load (in
(4) For dual-span applications, (vi) If the monitoring system or
indicate whether the analyzer MW, rounded to the nearest MW, or
excepted methodology provides for the steam load in klb/hr, rounded to the
component ID represents a high use of a constant, assumed, or default
measurement scale, a low scale, or a nearest klb/hr, or steam load in mmBtu/
value for a parameter under specific
dual range; hr, rounded to the nearest mmBtu/hr);
circumstances, then include the (B) The upper and lower boundaries
(5) For gas analyzers, indicate the following information for each such
moisture basis of measurement; of the range of operation (as defined in
value for each parameter: section 6.5.2.1 of appendix A to this
(6) Indicate the method of sample (A) Identification of the parameter;
acquisition or operation, (e.g., extractive (B) Default, maximum, minimum, or part), expressed in megawatts, mmBtu/
pollutant concentration monitor or constant value, and units of measure for hr of thermal output, or thousands of lb/
thermal flow monitor); and the value; hr of steam;
(7) Indicate the component activation (C) Purpose of the value; (C) Except for peaking units and units
date/hour and deactivation date/hour (D) Indicator of use, i.e., during using the low mass emissions excepted
(as applicable). controlled hours, uncontrolled hours, or methodology under § 75.19, identify the
(iv) Explicit formulas, using the all operating hours; load level designated as normal,
component and system identification (E) Type of fuel; pursuant to section 6.5.2.1 of appendix
codes for the primary monitoring (F) Source of the value; A to this part, expressed in megawatts,
system, and containing all constants and (G) Value effective date and hour; mmBtu/hr of thermal output, or
factors required to derive the required (H) Date and hour value is no longer thousands of lb/hr of steam;
mass emissions, emission rates, heat effective (if applicable); and (D) The date of the load analysis used
(I) For units using the excepted to determine the normal load level (as
input rates, etc. from the hourly data
methodology under § 75.19, the applicable); and
recorded by the monitoring systems.
applicable SO2 emission factor. (E) Activation and deactivation dates
Formulas using the system and (vii) Unless otherwise specified in
component ID codes for backup and hours, when the maximum hourly
section 6.5.2.1 of appendix A to this gross load, boundaries of the range of
monitoring systems are required only if part, for each unit or common stack on
different formulas for the same operation, or normal load level change
which hardware CEMS are installed: and are updated.
parameter are used for the primary and (A) Maximum hourly gross load (in (ix) For each unit with a flow monitor
backup monitoring systems (e.g., if the MW, rounded to the nearest MW, or installed on a rectangular stack or duct,
primary system measures pollutant steam load in 1000 lb/hr (i.e., klb/hr), if a wall effects adjustment factor (WAF)
concentration on a different moisture rounded to the nearest klb/hr, or is determined and applied to the hourly
basis from the backup system). Provide thermal output in mmBtu/hr, rounded flow rate data:
the equation number or other to the nearest mmBtu/hr), for units that (A) Stack or duct width at the test
appropriate code for each emissions produce electrical or thermal output; location, ft;
formula (e.g., use code F–1 if Equation (B) The upper and lower boundaries (B) Stack or duct depth at the test
F–1 in appendix F to this part is used of the range of operation (as defined in location, ft;
to calculate SO2 mass emissions). Also section 6.5.2.1 of appendix A to this (C) Wall effects adjustment factor
identify each emissions formula with a part), expressed in megawatts, (WAF), to the nearest 0.0001;
unique three character alphanumeric thousands of lb/hr of steam, mmBtu/hr (D) Method of determining the WAF;
code. The formula effective start date/ of thermal output, or ft/sec (as (E) WAF Effective date and hour;
hour and inactivation date/hour (as applicable); (F) WAF no longer effective date and
applicable) shall be included for each (C) Except for peaking units, identify hour (if applicable);
formula. The owner or operator of a unit the most frequently and second most (G) WAF determination date;
for which the optional low mass frequently used load (or operating) (H) Number of WAF test runs;
emissions excepted methodology in levels (i.e., low, mid, or high) in (I) Number of Method 1 traverse
§ 75.19 is being used is not required to accordance with section 6.5.2.1 of points in the WAF test;
report such formulas. appendix A to this part, expressed in (J) Number of test ports in the WAF
(v) For each parameter monitored megawatts, thousands of lb/hr of steam, test; and
with CEMS, provide the following mmBtu/hr of thermal output, or ft/sec (K) Number of Method 1 traverse
information: (as applicable); points in the reference flow RATA.
(A) Measurement scale (high or low); (D) Except for peaking units, an (2) Hardcopy. (i) Information,
(B) Maximum potential value (and indicator of whether the second most including (as applicable): Identification
method of calculation). If NOX emission frequently used load (or operating) level of the test strategy; protocol for the
rate in lb/mmBtu is monitored, calculate is designated as normal in section relative accuracy test audit; other
and provide the maximum potential 6.5.2.1 of appendix A to this part; relevant test information; calibration gas
NOX emission rate in addition to the (E) The date of the data analysis used levels (percent of span) for the
maximum potential NOX concentration; to determine the normal load (or calibration error test and linearity
check; calculations for determining (B) Type of fuel measured, maximum baseline or periodic NOX emission test;
maximum potential concentration, fuel flow rate, units of measure, and and
maximum expected concentration (if basis of maximum fuel flow rate (i.e., (B) Unit operating parameters related
applicable), maximum potential flow upper range value or unit maximum) for to NOX formation by the unit.
rate, maximum potential NOX emission each fuel flowmeter; (3) For each gas-fired unit and diesel-
rate, and span; and apportionment (C) Test method used to check the fired unit or unit with a wet flue gas
strategies under §§ 75.10 through 75.18. accuracy of each fuel flowmeter; pollution control system for which the
(ii) Description of site locations for (D) Monitoring system identification designated representative claims an
each monitoring component in the code; opacity monitoring exemption under
continuous emission or opacity (E) The method used to demonstrate § 75.14, the designated representative
monitoring systems, including that the unit qualifies for monthly GCV shall include in the hardcopy
schematic diagrams and engineering sampling or for daily or annual fuel monitoring plan the information
drawings specified in paragraphs sampling for sulfur content, as specified under § 75.14(b), (c), or (d),
(e)(2)(iv) and (e)(2)(v) of this section and applicable; and demonstrating that the unit qualifies for
any other documentation that (F) Activation date/hour and (if the exemption.
demonstrates each monitor location applicable) inactivation date/hour for (4) For each unit using the low mass
meets the appropriate siting criteria. the fuel flowmeter system; emissions excepted methodology under
(iii) A data flow diagram denoting the (ii) Hardcopy. (A) A schematic § 75.19 the designated representative
complete information handling path diagram identifying the relationship shall include the following additional
from output signals of CEMS between the unit, all fuel supply lines, information in the monitoring plan that
components to final reports. the fuel flowmeter(s), and the stack(s). accompanies the initial certification
(iv) For units monitored by a The schematic diagram must depict the application:
continuous emission or opacity installation location of each fuel (i) Electronic. For each low mass
monitoring system, a schematic diagram flowmeter and the fuel sampling emissions unit, report the results of the
identifying entire gas handling system location(s). Comprehensive and/or analysis performed to qualify as a low
from boiler to stack for all affected units, separate schematic diagrams shall be mass emissions unit under § 75.19(c).
using identification numbers for units, used to describe groups of units using This report will include either the
monitoring systems and components, a common pipe; previous three years actual or projected
and stacks corresponding to the (B) For units using the optional emissions. The following items should
identification numbers provided in default SO2 emission rate for ‘‘pipeline be included:
paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(iii) of this natural gas’’ or ‘‘natural gas’’ in (A) Current calendar year of
section. The schematic diagram must appendix D to this part, the information application;
depict stack height and the height of any on the sulfur content of the gaseous fuel (B) Type of qualification;
monitor locations. Comprehensive used to demonstrate compliance with (C) Years one, two, and three;
and/or separate schematic diagrams either section 2.3.1.4 or 2.3.2.4 of (D) Annual and/or ozone season
shall be used to describe groups of units appendix D to this part; measured, estimated or projected NOX
using a common stack. (C) For units using the 720 hour test mass emissions for years one, two, and
(v) For units monitored by a under 2.3.6 of Appendix D of this part three;
continuous emission or opacity to determine the required sulfur (E) Annual measured, estimated or
monitoring system, stack and duct sampling requirements, report the projected SO2 mass emissions (if
engineering diagrams showing the procedures and results of the test; and applicable) for years one, two, and
dimensions and location of fans, turning (D) For units using the 720 hour test three; and
vanes, air preheaters, monitor under 2.3.5 of Appendix D of this part (F) Annual or ozone season operating
components, probes, reference method to determine the appropriate fuel GCV hours for years one, two, and three.
sampling ports, and other equipment sampling frequency, report the (ii) Hardcopy. (A) A schematic
that affects the monitoring system procedures used and the results of the diagram identifying the relationship
location, performance, or quality control test. between the unit, all fuel supply lines
checks. (2) For each gas-fired peaking unit and tanks, any fuel flowmeter(s), and
(h) Contents of monitoring plan for and oil-fired peaking unit for which the the stack(s). Comprehensive and/or
specific situations. The following owner or operator uses the optional separate schematic diagrams shall be
additional information shall be included procedures in appendix E to this part for used to describe groups of units using
in the monitoring plan for the specific estimating NOX emission rate, the a common pipe;
situations described: designated representative shall include (B) For units which use the long term
(1) For each gas-fired unit or oil-fired in the monitoring plan: fuel flow methodology under
unit for which the owner or operator (i) Electronic. Unit operating and § 75.19(c)(3), the designated
uses the optional protocol in appendix capacity factor information representative must provide a diagram
D to this part for estimating heat input demonstrating that the unit qualifies as of the fuel flow to each affected unit or
and/or SO2 mass emissions, or for each a peaking unit, as defined in § 72.2 of group of units and describe in detail the
gas-fired or oil-fired peaking unit for this chapter for the current calendar procedures used to determine the long
which the owner/operator uses the year or ozone season, including: term fuel flow for a unit or group of
optional protocol in appendix E to this capacity factor data for three calendar units for each fuel combusted by the
part for estimating NOX emission rate years (or ozone seasons) as specified in unit or group of units;
(using a fuel flowmeter), the designated the definition of peaking unit in § 72.2 (C) A statement that the unit burns
representative shall include the of this chapter; the method of only gaseous fuel(s) and/or fuel oil and
following additional information for qualification used; and an indication of a list of the fuels that are burned or a
each fuel flowmeter system in the whether the data are actual or projected statement that the unit is projected to
monitoring plan: data. burn only gaseous fuel(s) and/or fuel oil
(i) Electronic. (A) Parameter (ii) Hardcopy. (A) A protocol and a list of the fuels that are projected
monitored; containing methods used to perform the to be burned;
(D) A statement that the unit meets the definition of gas-fired in § 72.2 of ‘‘rounded to the nearest 1000 lb/hr’’, in
the applicability requirements in this part, the method of qualification paragraph (b)(3);
§ 75.19(a) and (b); and used, and an indication of whether the ■ b. Revising Table 4a in paragraph
(E) Any unit historical actual, data are actual or projected data. (c)(4)(iv);
estimated and projected emissions data (6) For each monitoring location with ■ c. Removing the word ‘‘hundredth’’
and calculated emissions data a stack flow monitor that is exempt from and adding in its place the word ‘‘tenth’’
demonstrating that the affected unit performing 3-load flow RATAs (peaking in paragraph (i)(1)(iv); and
qualifies as a low mass emissions unit units, bypass stacks, or by petition) the ■ d. Removing the words ‘‘, § 75.12(b),’’
under § 75.19(a) and 75.19(b). designated representative shall include from paragraphs (i)(2) and (j)(2).
(5) For qualification as a gas-fired in the monitoring plan an indicator of The revisions read as follows:
unit, as defined in § 72.2 of this part, the exemption from 3-load flow RATA
designated representative shall include using the appropriate exemption code. § 75.57 General recordkeeping provisions.
in the monitoring plan, in electronic ■ 23. Section 75.57 is amended by: * * * * *
format, the following: Current calendar ■ a. Adding the phrase ‘‘, or mmBtu/hr (c) * * *
year, fuel usage data for three calendar of thermal output, rounded to the (4) * * *
years (or ozone seasons) as specified in nearest mmBtu/hr’’ after the phrase (iv) * * *
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 con-
centration, 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 pe-
riod, 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 concentra-
tion 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, maximum expected Hg concentration, 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 oper-
ational 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 con-
trols only).
23 .... Maximum potential SO2 concentration, NOX concentration, CO2 concentration, NOX emission rate or flow 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 down-
stream 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.)
TABLE 4A.—CODES FOR METHOD OF EMISSIONS AND FLOW DETERMINATION—Continued

Code Hourly emissions/flow measurement or estimation method
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.
32 .... Hourly Hg concentration determined from analysis of a single trap multiplied by a factor of 1.111 when one of the paired traps is invali-
dated or damaged (See Appendix K, section 8).
33 .... Hourly Hg concentration determined from the trap resulting in the higher Hg concentration when the relative deviation criterion for the
paired traps is not met (See Appendix K, section 8).
40 .... Fuel specific default value (or prorated default value) used for the hour.
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.
* * * * * (b) * * * ■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(viii);

■ 24. Section 75.58 is amended by: (3) Except as otherwise provided in ■ c. Removing the phrase ‘‘For the
■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(3) § 75.34(d), for units with add-on SO2 or qualifying test for off-line calibration,
introductory text; NOX emission controls following the the owner or operator shall indicate’’
■ b. Removing paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) and provisions of § 75.34(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3) and adding in its place the phrase
(b)(3)(iv); or (a)(5), and for units with add-on Hg ‘‘Indication of’’, in paragraph (a)(1)(xi);
■ c. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ from emission controls, the owner or operator ■ d. Adding the phrase ‘‘(after January 1,
paragraph (c)(1)(xii); shall record: 2009, only the component identification
■ d. Removing the period and adding in code is required)’’ after the word
* * * * *
its place a semicolon and adding the (c) * * * ‘‘code’’, in paragraph (a)(2)(i);
word ‘‘and’’ to the end of the paragraph, (1) * * * ■ e. Adding the phrase ‘‘(on and after
in paragraph (c)(1)(xiii); (xiv) Heat input formula ID and SO2 January 1, 2009, only the component
■ e. Adding paragraph (c)(1)(xiv); Formula ID (required beginning January identification code is required)’’ after
■ f. Removing the period and adding in 1, 2009). the word ‘‘code’’, in paragraph (a)(3)(i);
its place a semicolon and adding the
* * * * * ■ f. Adding the phrase ‘‘(only span scale
word ‘‘and’’ to the end of the paragraph,
(4) * * * is required on and after January 1,
in paragraph (c)(4)(x); (xi) Heat input formula ID and SO2
■ g. Adding paragraph (c)(4)(xi);
2009)’’ after the word ‘‘scale’’, in
■ h. Removing the words ‘‘rounded to
Formula ID (required beginning January paragraph (a)(3)(ii);
the nearest hundredth for diesel fuel’’ 1, 2009). ■ g. Adding the phrase ‘‘(on and after
and adding in its place the words * * * * * January 1, 2009, only the system
‘‘rounded to either the nearest (d) * * * identification code is required)’’ after
hundredth, or nearest ten-thousandth (1) * * * the word ‘‘code’’, in paragraph (a)(4)(i);
for diesel fuels’’ in paragraph (c)(5)(ii); (xi) Heat input rate formula ID ■ h. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ after the
■ i. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ after the (required beginning January 1, 2009). semicolon at the end of paragraph
semicolon in paragraph (d)(1)(ix). (2) * * * (a)(4)(vi)(L);
■ j. Removing the period and adding in
(xi) Heat input rate formula ID ■ i. Removing the period and adding in
its place a semicolon and adding the (required beginning January 1, 2009). its place a semicolon and adding the
word ‘‘and’’ to the end of the paragraph, * * * * * word ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph
in paragraph (d)(1)(x); (f) * * * (a)(4)(vi)(M);
■ k. Adding paragraph (d)(1)(xi); (1) * * * ■ j. Adding paragraph (a)(4)(vi)(N);
■ l. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ after the (iii) Fuel type (pipeline natural gas, ■ k. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ after the
semicolon in paragraph (d)(2)(ix); natural gas, other gaseous fuel, residual semicolon, at the end of paragraph
■ m. Removing the period and adding in oil, or diesel fuel). If more than one type (a)(4)(vii)(K);
its place a semicolon and adding the of fuel is combusted in the hour, either: ■ l. Removing the period and adding in
word ‘‘and’’ to the end of the paragraph, (A) Indicate the fuel type which its place a semicolon and adding the
in paragraph (d)(2)(x); results in the highest emission factors word ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph
■ n. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(xi); for NOX (this option is in effect through (a)(4)(vii)(L);
■ o. Revising paragraph (f)(1)(iii); December 31, 2008); or ■ m. Adding paragraph (a)(4)(vii)(M);
■ p. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ at the (B) Indicate the fuel type resulting in ■ n. Revising paragraph (a)(6)
end of paragraph (f)(1)(xi); the highest emission factor for each introductory text;
■ q. Removing the period and adding in parameter (SO2, NOX emission rate, and ■ o. Adding the phrase ‘‘(on and after
its place a semicolon at the end of CO2) separately (this option is required January 1, 2009, only the component
paragraph (f)(1)(xii); on and after January 1, 2009); identification code is required)’’ after
■ r. Adding paragraphs (f)(1)(xiii) and * * * * * the word ‘‘code’’, in paragraph (a)(6)(i);
(f)(1)(xiv); and (xiii) Base or peak load indicator (as ■ p. Removing the phrase ‘‘Cycle time
■ s. Removing the word ‘‘Component’’
applicable); and result for the entire system’’ and adding
and adding in its place the word (xiv) Multiple fuel flag.
‘‘Monitoring’’, in paragraph (f)(2)(x). in its place the phrase ‘‘Total cycle
The revisions and additions read as * * * * * time’’, in paragraph (a)(6)(ix);
follows: ■ 25. Section 75.59 is amended by: ■ q. Revising the heading of reserved
■ a. Adding the phrase ‘‘(on and after paragraph (a)(7)(viii);
§ 75.58 General recordkeeping provisions January 1, 2009, only the component ■ r. Adding paragraphs (a)(7)(ix) and
for specific situations. identification code is required)’’ after (a)(7)(x);
* * * * * the word ‘‘code’’, in paragraph (a)(1)(i); ■ s. Revising paragraph (a)(8);
■ t. Removing and reserving paragraph ■ oo. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ after (D) Dry gas volume metered (dscm);
(a)(12)(iii); the semicolon at the end of paragraph (E) Percent isokinetic;
■ u. Removing the number ‘‘(2)’’ from (d)(2)(iv); (F) Particulate Hg collected in the
the paragraph identifier ‘‘§ 75.64(a)(2)’’ ■ pp. Removing the period and adding front half of the sampling train,
in the second sentence of paragraph in its place a semicolon at the end of corrected for the front-half blank value
(a)(13); paragraph (d)(2)(v); and (µg); and
■ v. Adding the phrase ‘‘(on and after ■ qq. Adding paragraphs (d)(2)(vi), (G) Total vapor phase Hg collected in
January 1, 2009, only the component (d)(2)(vii), (e) and (f). the back half of the sampling train,
identification code is required)’’ after The revisions and additions read as corrected for the back-half blank value
the word ‘‘tested’’, in paragraphs follows: (µg).
(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(i); (8) For each certified continuous
■ w. Adding the phrase ‘‘(on and after § 75.59 Certification, quality, assurance, emission monitoring system, continuous
January 1, 2009, only the monitoring and quality control record provisions.
opacity monitoring system, excepted
system identification code is required)’’ * * * * * monitoring system, or alternative
after the word ‘‘code’’, in paragraph (a) * * * monitoring system, the date and
(b)(4)(i)(A); (1) * * * description of each event which
■ x. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ after the (viii) For 7-day calibration error tests, requires certification, recertification, or
semicolon at the end of paragraph a test number and reason for test; certain diagnostic testing of the system
(b)(4)(i)(H); * * * * * and the date and type of each test
■ y. Removing the period and adding in (4) * * * performed. If the conditional data
its place a semicolon and adding the (vi) * * * validation procedures of § 75.20(b)(3)
word ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (N) Test number. are to be used to validate and report
(b)(4)(i)(I); (vii) * * * data prior to the completion of the
■ z. Adding paragraph (b)(4)(i)(J); (M) An indicator (‘‘flag’’) if separate required certification, recertification, or
■ aa. Revising paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(A), reference ratios are calculated for each diagnostic testing, the date and hour of
(b)(4)(ii)(B), and (b)(4)(ii)(F); multiple stack.
■ bb. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ after
the probationary calibration error test
* * * * * shall be reported to mark the beginning
the semicolon at the end of paragraph (6) For each SO2, NOX, Hg, or CO2
(b)(4)(ii)(L); of conditional data validation.
pollutant concentration monitor, each
■ cc. Removing the period and adding * * * * *
component of a NOX-diluent continuous (b) * * *
in its place a semicolon and adding the emission monitoring system, and each
word ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (4) * * *
CO2 or O2 monitor used to determine (i) * * *
(b)(4)(ii)(M); heat input, the owner or operator shall
■ dd. Adding paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(N); (J) Test number.
■ ee. Adding the phrase ‘‘(on and after
record the following information for the (ii) * * *
January 1, 2009, component cycle time test: (A) Completion date and hour of most
identification codes shall be reported in * * * * * recent primary element inspection or
addition to the monitoring system (7) * * * test number of the most recent primary
identification code)’’ after the second (viii) Data elements for Methods 30A element inspection (as applicable); (on
occurrence of the word ‘‘system’’ in and 30B. [Reserved] and after January 1, 2009, the test
paragraphs (b)(5)(i)(B), (b)(5)(ii)(B), and (ix) For a unit with a flow monitor number of the most recent primary
(b)(5)(iii)(B); installed on a rectangular stack or duct, element inspection is required in lieu of
■ ff. Adding the phrase ‘‘This if a site-specific default or measured the completion date and hour for the
requirement remains in effect through wall effects adjustment factor (WAF) is most recent primary element
December 31, 2008’’ after the word used to correct the stack gas volumetric inspection);
‘‘run;’’, in paragraph (b)(5)(i)(H); flow rate data to account for velocity (B) Completion date and hour of most
■ gg. Adding the phrase ‘‘(as decay near the stack or duct wall, the recent flow meter of transmitter
applicable). This requirement remains owner or operator shall keep records of accuracy test or test number of the most
in effect through December 31, 2008’’ the following for each flow RATA recent flowmeter or transmitter accuracy
after the word ‘‘level’’, in paragraph performed with EPA Method 2 in test (as applicable); (on and after
(b)(5)(iv)(A); appendices A–1 and A–2 to part 60 of January 1, 2009, the test number of the
■ hh. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ after this chapter, subsequent to the WAF most recent flowmeter or transmitter
the semicolon at the end of paragraph determination: accuracy test is required in lieu of the
(b)(5)(iv)(G); (A) Monitoring system ID; completion date and hour for the most
■ ii. Removing the period and adding in (B) Test number; recent flowmeter or transmitter accuracy
its place a semicolon and adding the (C) Operating level; test);
word ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (D) RATA end date and time; * * * * *
(b)(5)(iv)(H); (E) Number of Method 1 traverse (F) Average load, in megawatts, 1000
■ jj. Adding paragraph (b)(5)(iv)(I); points; and lb/hr of steam, or mmBtu/hr thermal
■ kk. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ after (F) Wall effects adjustment factor output;
the semicolon at the end of paragraph (WAF), to the nearest 0.0001.
(d)(1)(xi); (x) For each RATA run using Method * * * * *
■ ll. Removing the period and adding in 29 in appendix A–8 to part 60 of this (N) Monitoring system identification
its place a semicolon and adding the chapter to determine Hg concentration: code.
word ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (A) Percent CO2 and O2 in the stack * * * * *
(d)(1)(xii); gas, dry basis; (5) * * *

■ mm. Adding paragraph (d)(1)(xiii); (B) Moisture content of the stack gas (iv) * * *
■ nn. Removing the phrase ‘‘, multiplied (percent H2O); (I) Component identification code
by 1.15, if appropriate’’ from paragraph (C) Average stack gas temperature (required on and after January 1, 2009).
(d)(2)(iii); (°F); * * * * *
(d) * * * during the test runs (if applicable); submitted no later than 7 days following
(1) * * * diagrams illustrating the test and sample the actual date of shutdown or of
(xiii) An indicator (‘‘flag’’) if the run point locations; a copy of the test recommencement of commercial
is used to calculate the highest 3-run protocol used; calibration certificates for operation, as applicable;
average NOX emission rate at any load the gas standards or standard solutions (ii) For unplanned unit shutdowns
level. used in the testing; laboratory (e.g., forced outages), written
(2) * * * calibrations of the source sampling notification of the actual shutdown date
(vi) Indicator of whether the testing equipment; and the names of the key shall be provided no more than 7 days
was done at base load, peak load or both personnel involved in the test program, after the shutdown, and written
(if appropriate); and including test team members, plant notification of the planned date of
(vii) The default NOX emission rate contact persons, agency representatives recommencement of commercial
for peak load hours (if applicable). and test observers. operation shall be provided at least 21
* * * * * * * * * * days in advance of unit restart. If the
(e) Excepted monitoring for Hg low ■ 27. Section 75.61 is amended by:
actual date of recommencement of
mass emission units under § 75.81(b). ■ a. Revising the first sentence of
commercial operation differs from the
For qualifying coal-fired units using the paragraph (a)(1) introductory text; expected date, written notice of the
alternative low mass emission ■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(3); actual date shall be submitted no later
methodology under § 75.81(b), the ■ c. Revising the first sentence of than 7 days following the actual date of
owner or operator shall record the data paragraph (a)(5) introductory text; and recommencement of commercial
elements described in § 75.59(a)(7)(vii), ■ d. Adding paragraphs (a)(7) and (a)(8) operation.
§ 75.59(a)(7)(viii), or § 75.59(a)(7)(x), as The revisions and additions read as * * * * *
applicable, for each run of each Hg follows: (5) * * * The owner or operator or
emission test and re-test required under designated representative of an affected
§ 75.81(c)(1) or § 75.81(d)(4)(iii). § 75.61 Notifications. unit shall submit written notice of the
(f) DAHS Verification. For each DAHS (a) * * * date of periodic relative accuracy testing
(missing data and formula) verification (1) * * * The owner or operator or performed under section 2.3.1 of
that is required for initial certification, designated representative for an affected appendix B to this part, of periodic
recertification, or for certain diagnostic unit shall submit written notification of retesting performed under section 2.2 of
testing of a monitoring system, record initial certification tests and revised test appendix E to this part, of periodic
the date and hour that the DAHS dates as specified in § 75.20 for retesting of low mass emissions units
verification is successfully completed. continuous emission monitoring performed under § 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(D),
(This requirement only applies to units systems, for the excepted Hg monitoring and of periodic retesting of Hg low mass
that report monitoring plan data in methodology under § 75.81(b), for emissions units performed under
accordance with § 75.53(g) and (h).) alternative monitoring systems under § 75.81(d)(4)(iii), no later than 21 days
* * * * * subpart E of this part, or for excepted prior to the first scheduled day of
■ 26. Section 75.60 is amended by
monitoring systems under appendix E to testing. * * *
adding paragraph (b)(8) to read as this part, except as provided in (7) Long-term cold storage and
follows: paragraphs (a)(1)(iii), (a)(1)(iv) and (a)(4) recommencement of commercial
of this section. * * * operation. The designated
§ 75.60 General provisions. * * * * * representative for an affected unit that is
* * * * * (3) Unit shutdown and placed into long-term cold storage that
(b) * * * recommencement of commercial is relying on the provisions in § 75.4(d)
(8) Routine retest reports for Hg low operation. For an affected unit that will or § 75.64(a), either to postpone
mass emissions units. If requested in be shut down on the relevant certification testing or to discontinue
writing (or by electronic mail) by the compliance date specified in § 75.4 or in the submittal of quarterly reports during
applicable EPA Regional Office, a State or Federal pollutant mass the period of long-term cold storage,
appropriate State, and/or appropriate emissions reduction program that shall provide written notification of
local air pollution control agency, the adopts the monitoring and reporting long-term cold storage status and
designated representative shall submit a requirements of this part, if the owner recommencement of commercial
hardcopy report for a semiannual or or operator is relying on the provisions operation as follows:
annual retest required under in § 75.4(d) to postpone certification (i) Whenever an affected unit has been
§ 75.81(d)(4)(iii) for a Hg low mass testing, the designated representative for placed into long-term cold storage,
emissions unit, within 45 days after the unit shall submit notification of unit written notification of the date and hour
completing the test or within 15 days of shutdown and recommencement of that the unit was shutdown and a
receiving the request, whichever is later. commercial operation as follows: statement from the designated
The designated representative shall (i) For planned unit shutdowns (e.g., representative stating that the shutdown
report, at a minimum, the following extended maintenance outages), written is expected to last for at least two years
hardcopy information to the applicable notification of the planned shutdown from that date, in accordance with the
EPA Regional Office, appropriate State, date shall be provided at least 21 days definition for long-term cold storage of
and/or appropriate local air pollution prior to the applicable compliance date, a unit as provided in § 72.2 of this
control agency that requested the and written notification of the planned chapter.
hardcopy report: a summary of the test date of recommencement of commercial (ii) Whenever an affected unit that has
results; the raw reference method data operation shall be provided at least 21 been placed into long-term cold storage
for each test run; the raw data and days in advance of unit restart. If the is expected to resume operation, written
results of all pretest, post-test, and post- actual shutdown date or the actual date notification shall be submitted 45
run quality-assurance checks of the of recommencement of commercial calendar days prior to the planned date
reference method; the raw data and operation differs from the planned date, of recommencement of commercial
results of moisture measurements made written notice of the actual date shall be operation. If the actual date of
recommencement of commercial ■ f. Removing and reserving paragraph unit shall electronically report the data
operation differs from the expected date, (b)(2)(iii); and information in paragraphs (a), (b),
written notice of the actual date shall be ■ g. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(iv). and (c) of this section to the
submitted no later than 7 days following The revisions read as follows: Administrator quarterly, beginning with
the actual date of recommencement of the data from the earlier of the calendar
§ 75.63 Initial certification or recertification
commercial operation. quarter corresponding to the date of
application.
(8) Certification deadline date for new provisional certification or the calendar
or newly affected units. The designated (a) * * * quarter corresponding to the relevant
representative of a new or newly (1) * * * deadline for initial certification in
affected unit shall provide notification (ii) * * * § 75.4(a), (b), or (c). The initial quarterly
of the date on which the relevant (A) To the Administrator, the report shall contain hourly data
deadline for initial certification is electronic low mass emission beginning with the hour of provisional
reached, either as provided in § 75.4(b) qualification information required by certification or the hour corresponding
or § 75.4(c), or as specified in a State or § 75.53(f)(5)(i) or § 75.53(h)(4)(i) (as to the relevant certification deadline,
Federal SO2, NOX, or Hg mass emission applicable) and paragraph (b)(1)(i) of whichever is earlier. For an affected unit
reduction program that incorporates by this section; and subject to § 75.4(d) that is shutdown on
reference, or otherwise adopts, the * * * * * the relevant compliance date in § 75.4(a)
monitoring, recordkeeping, and (2) * * * or has been placed in long-term cold
reporting requirements of subpart F, G, (iii) Notwithstanding the storage (as defined in § 72.2 of this
H, or I of this part. The notification shall requirements of paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and chapter), quarterly reports are not
be submitted no later than 7 calendar (a)(2)(ii) of this section, for an event for required. In such cases, the owner or
days after the applicable certification which the Administrator determines operator shall submit quarterly reports
deadline is reached. that only diagnostic tests (see § 75.20(b)) for the unit beginning with the data
* * * * * are required rather than recertification from the quarter in which the unit
testing, no hardcopy submittal is recommences commercial operation
required; however, the results of all (where the initial quarterly report
■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); and
diagnostic test(s) shall be submitted contains hourly data beginning with the
■ b. Removing the number ‘‘45’’ and
prior to or concurrent with the first hour of recommenced commercial
adding in its place the number ‘‘21’’
electronic quarterly report required operation of the unit). For units placed
before the phrase ‘‘days prior’’, in
under § 75.64. Notwithstanding the into long-term cold storage during a
paragraph (a)(2).
The revisions read as follows: requirement of § 75.59(e), for DAHS reporting quarter, the exemption from
(missing data and formula) verifications, submitting quarterly reports begins with
§ 75.62 Monitoring plan submittals. no hardcopy submittal is required; the the calendar quarter following the date
(a) * * * owner or operator shall keep these test that the unit is placed into long-term
(1) Electronic. Using the format results on-site in a format suitable for cold storage. For any provisionally-
specified in paragraph (c) of this inspection. certified monitoring system,
section, the designated representative * * * * * § 75.20(a)(3) shall apply for initial
for an affected unit shall submit a (b) * * * certifications, and § 75.20(b)(5) shall
complete, electronic, up-to-date (2) * * * apply for recertifications. Each
monitoring plan file (except for (iv) Designated representative electronic report must be submitted to
hardcopy portions identified in signature certifying the accuracy of the the Administrator within 30 days
paragraph (a)(2) of this section) to the submission. following the end of each calendar
Administrator as follows: no later than * * * * * quarter. Prior to January 1, 2008, each
21 days prior to the initial certification ■ 30. Section 75.64 is amended by:
electronic report shall include for each
tests; at the time of each certification or ■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory
affected unit (or group of units using a
recertification application submission; text; common stack), the information
and (prior to or concurrent with) the ■ b. Redesignate paragraph (a)(2)(xiv) as
provided in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and
submittal of the electronic quarterly paragraph (a)(2)(xiii); (a)(8) through (a)(15) of this section.
report for a reporting quarter where an ■ c. Revise newly designated paragraph
During the time period of January 1,
update of the electronic monitoring plan (a)(2)(xiii); 2008 to January 1, 2009, each electronic
information is required, either under ■ d. Removing paragraph (a)(8);
report shall include, either the
§ 75.53(b) or elsewhere in this part. ■ e. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(9)
information provided in paragraphs
* * * * * through (a)(11) as paragraphs (a)(13) (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(8) through (a)(15) of
■ 29. Section 75.63 is amended by: through (a)(15), and redesignating this section or the information provided
■ a. Removing the phrase ‘‘and a paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(7) as in paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(15) of
hardcopy certification application form paragraphs (a)(8) through (a)(12); this section. On and after January 1,
(EPA form 7610–14)’’ from paragraph ■ f. Adding new paragraphs (a)(3)
2009, the owner or operator shall meet
(a)(1)(i)(A); through (a)(7); and the requirements of paragraphs (a)(3)
■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A); ■ g. Removing the citation ‘‘§ 75.59’’,
through (a)(15) of this section only. Each
■ c. Adding the phrase ‘‘or and adding in its place ‘‘§ 75.58(f)(2)’’ at electronic report shall also include the
§ 75.53(h)(4)(ii) (as applicable)’’ after the the end of newly designated paragraph date of report generation.
identifier ‘‘§ 75.53(f)(5)(ii)’’, in (a)(14). * * * * *
paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B); The revisions and additions read as (2) * * *
■ d. Removing the phrase ‘‘and a follows: (xiii) Supplementary RATA

hardcopy certification application form information required under
(EPA form 7610–14)’’ after the word § 75.64 Quarterly reports. § 75.59(a)(7), except that:
‘‘section’’, in paragraph (a)(2)(i); (a) Electronic submission. The (A) The applicable data elements
■ e. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(iii); designated representative for an affected under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(A) through (T)
and under § 75.59(a)(7)(iii)(A) through (i) Descriptions of adjustments, adjustment factor is determined by
(M) shall be reported for flow RATAs at corrective action, and maintenance; direct measurement;
circular or rectangular stacks (or ducts) (ii) Information which is incompatible (C) The data under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(T)
in which angular compensation for yaw with electronic reporting (e.g., field data shall be reported for all flow RATAs at
and/or pitch angles is used (i.e., Method sheets, lab analyses, quality control circular stacks in which Method 2 in
2F or 2G in appendices A–1 and A–2 to plan); appendices A–1 and A–2 to part 60 of
part 60 of this chapter), with or without (iii) Opacity data listed in § 75.57(f), this chapter is used and a default wall
wall effects adjustments; and in § 75.59(a)(8); effects adjustment factor is applied; and
(B) The applicable data elements (iv) For units with SO2 or NOX add- (D) The data under
under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(A) through (T) on emission controls that do not elect to § 75.59(a)(7)(vii)(A) through (F) shall be
and under § 75.59(a)(7)(iii)(A) through use the approved site-specific reported for all flow RATAs at
(M) shall be reported for any flow RATA parametric monitoring procedures for rectangular stacks or ducts in which
run at a circular stack in which Method calculation of substitute data, the Method 2 in appendices A–1 and A–2
2 in appendices A–1 and A–2 to part 60 information in § 75.58(b)(3); to part 60 of this chapter is used and a
of this chapter is used and a wall effects (v) Information required by § 75.57(h) wall effects adjustment factor is applied.
adjustment factor is determined by concerning the causes of any missing * * * * *
direct measurement; data periods and the actions taken to
(C) The data under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(T) cure such causes; § 75.66 [Amended]
shall be reported for all flow RATAs at (vi) Hardcopy monitoring plan ■ 31. Section 75.66 is amended by
circular stacks in which Method 2 in information required by § 75.53 and removing and reserving paragraph (f).
appendices A–1 and A–2 to part 60 of hardcopy test data and results required
this chapter is used and a default wall by § 75.59; ■ 32. Section 75.71 is amended by:
effects adjustment factor is applied; and (vii) Records of flow monitor and ■ a. Revising the section heading;
(D) The data under § 75.59(a)(7)(ix)(A) moisture monitoring system polynomial ■ b. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the
through (F) shall be reported for all flow equations, coefficients, or ‘‘K’’ factors second occurrence of the phrase ‘‘CO2
RATAs at rectangular stacks or ducts in required by § 75.59(a)(5)(vi) or diluent gas monitor’’ and adding in its
which Method 2 in appendices A–1 and § 75.59(a)(5)(vii); place the phrase ‘‘CO2 diluent gas
A–2 to part 60 of this chapter is used (viii) Daily fuel sampling information monitoring system’’;
■ c. Removing the phrase ‘‘O2 or CO2
and a wall effects adjustment factor is required by § 75.58(c)(3)(i) for units
applied. using assumed values under appendix D diluent gas monitor’’ and adding in its
(3) Facility identification information, of this part; place the phrase ‘‘O2 or CO2 monitoring
including: system’’, in paragraph (a)(2); and
(ix) Information required by
■ d. Revising paragraph (e).
(i) Facility/ORISPL number; §§ 75.59(b)(1)(vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), and
(ii) Calendar quarter and year for the The revision reads as follows:
(xiii), and (b)(2)(iii) and (iv) concerning
data contained in the report; and fuel flowmeter accuracy tests and § 75.71 Specific provisions for monitoring
(iii) Version of the electronic data transmitter/transducer accuracy tests; NOX and heat input for the purpose of
reporting format used for the report. (x) Stratification test results required calculating NOX mass emissions.
(4) In accordance with § 75.62(a)(1), if as part of the RATA supplementary * * * * *
any monitoring plan information records under § 75.59(a)(7); (e) Low mass emissions units.
required in § 75.53 requires an update, (xi) Data and results of RATAs that Notwithstanding the requirements of
either under § 75.53(b) or elsewhere in are aborted or invalidated due to paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, for
this part, submission of the electronic problems with the reference method or an affected unit using the low mass
monitoring plan update shall be operational problems with the unit and emissions (LME) unit under § 75.19 to
completed prior to or concurrent with data and results of linearity checks that estimate hourly NOX emission rate, heat
the submittal of the quarterly electronic are aborted or invalidated due to input and NOX mass emissions, the
data report for the appropriate quarter in problems unrelated to monitor owner or operator shall calculate the
which the update is required. performance; and ozone season NOX mass emissions by
(5) Except for the daily calibration (xii) Supplementary RATA summing all of the estimated hourly
error test data, daily interference check, information required under NOX mass emissions in the ozone
and off-line calibration demonstration § 75.59(a)(7)(i) through § 75.59(a)(7)(v), season, as determined under § 75.19
information required in § 75.59(a)(1) except that: (c)(4)(ii)(A), and dividing this sum by
and (2), which must always be (A) The applicable data elements 2000 lb/ton.
submitted with the quarterly report, the under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(A) through (T) * * * * *
certification, quality assurance, and and under § 75.59(a)(7)(iii)(A) through
quality control information required in (M) shall be reported for flow RATAs at
■ a. Revising the section heading and
§ 75.59 shall either be submitted prior to circular or rectangular stacks (or ducts)
the introductory text;
or concurrent with the submittal of the in which angular compensation for yaw ■ b. Revising paragraph (c)(3); and
relevant quarterly electronic data report. and/or pitch angles is used (i.e., Method ■ c. Removing and reserving paragraph
(6) The information and hourly data 2F or 2G in appendices A–1 and A–2 to (f).
required in §§ 75.57 through 75.59, and part 60 of this chapter), with or without The revisions read as follows:
daily calibration error test data, daily wall effects adjustments;
interference check, and off-line (B) The applicable data elements § 75.72 Determination of NOX mass
calibration demonstration information under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(A) through (T) emissions for common stack and multiple
required in § 75.59(a)(1) and (2). and under § 75.59(a)(7)(iii)(A) through stack configurations.
(7) Notwithstanding the requirements (M) shall be reported for any flow RATA The owner or operator of an affected
of paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(6) of this run at a circular stack in which Method unit shall either: calculate hourly NOX
section, the following information is 2 in appendices A–1 and A–2 to part 60 mass emissions (in lbs) by multiplying
excluded from electronic reporting: of this chapter is used and a wall effects the hourly NOX emission rate (in lbs/
mmBtu) by the hourly heat input rate documentation, the owner or operator low mass emissions excepted
(in mmBtu/hr) and the unit or stack shall record parametric data to verify methodology under § 75.19 the
operating time (as defined in § 72.2), or, the proper operation of the NOX add-on monitoring plan shall include the
as provided in paragraph (e) of this emission controls as described in additional information in § 75.53(h)(4)(i)
section, calculate hourly NOX mass § 75.34(d). Furthermore, the owner or and (h)(4)(ii), only. Prior to January 1,
emissions from the hourly NOX operator shall calculate the MCR using 2008, the monitoring plan shall also
concentration (in ppm) and the hourly the procedure described in section identify, in electronic format, the
stack flow rate (in scfh). Only one 2.1.2.1(b) of appendix A to this part by reporting schedule for the affected unit
methodology for determining NOX mass replacing the words ‘‘maximum (ozone season or quarterly), and the
emissions shall be identified in the potential NOX emission rate (MER)’’ beginning and end dates for the
monitoring plan for each monitoring with the words ‘‘maximum controlled reporting schedule. The monitoring plan
location at any given time. The owner NOX emission rate (MCR)’’ and by using also shall include a seasonal controls
or operator shall also calculate quarterly the NOX MEC in the calculations indicator, and an ozone season fuel-
and cumulative year-to-date NOX mass instead of the NOX MPC. switching flag.
emissions and cumulative NOX mass * * * * * * * * * *
emissions for the ozone season (in tons) (f) [Reserved] (f) * * *
by summing the hourly NOX mass * * * * * (1) Electronic submission. The
emissions according to the procedures designated representative for an affected
in section 8 of appendix F to this part. unit shall electronically report the data
■ a. Revising paragraph (c)(3);
* * * * * ■ b. Removing the number ‘‘45’’ and
and information in this paragraph (f)(1)
(c) * * * adding in its place the number ‘‘21’’ in and in paragraphs (f)(2) and (3) of this
(3) Install, certify, operate, and paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2); section to the Administrator quarterly,
maintain a NOX-diluent CEMS and a ■ c. Revising paragraph (f)(1)
unless the unit has been placed in long-
flow monitoring system only on the introductory text; term cold storage (as defined in § 72.2
main stack. If this option is chosen, it ■ d. Removing the phrase ‘‘paragraph
of this chapter). For units placed into
is not necessary to designate the exhaust (a)’’ and adding in its place the phrase long-term cold storage during a
configuration as a multiple stack ‘‘paragraphs (a) and (b)’’ in paragraph reporting quarter, the exemption from
configuration in the monitoring plan (f)(1)(ii) introductory text; and submitting quarterly reports begins with
required under § 75.53, since only the ■ e. Revising paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(K). the calendar quarter following the date
main stack is monitored. For each unit The revisions read as follows: that the unit is placed into long-term
operating hour in which the bypass cold storage. In such cases, the owner or
stack is used and the emissions are § 75.73 Recordkeeping and reporting. operator shall submit quarterly reports
either uncontrolled (or the add-on * * * * * for the unit beginning with the data
controls are not documented to be (c) * * * from the quarter in which the unit
operating properly), report NOX mass (3) Contents of the monitoring plan recommences operation (where the
emissions as follows. If the unit heat for units not subject to an Acid Rain initial quarterly report contains hourly
input is determined using a flow emissions limitation. Prior to January 1, data beginning with the first hour of
monitor and a diluent monitor, report 2009, each monitoring plan shall recommenced operation of the unit).
NOX mass emissions using the contain the information in § 75.53(e)(1) Each electronic report must be
maximum potential NOX emission rate, or § 75.53(g)(1) in electronic format and submitted to the Administrator within
the maximum potential flow rate, and the information in § 75.53(e)(2) or 30 days following the end of each
either the maximum potential CO2 § 75.53(g)(2) in hardcopy format. On and calendar quarter. Except as otherwise
concentration or the minimum potential after January 1, 2009, each monitoring provided in § 75.64(a)(4) and (a)(5), each
O2 concentration (as applicable). The plan shall contain the information in electronic report shall include the
maximum potential NOX emission rate § 75.53(g)(1) in electronic format and the information provided in paragraphs
may be specific to the type of fuel information in § 75.53(g)(2) in hardcopy (f)(1)(i) through (1)(vi) of this section,
combusted in the unit during the bypass format, only. In addition, to the extent and shall also include the date of report
(see § 75.33(c)(8)). If the unit heat input applicable, prior to January 1, 2009, generation. Prior to January 1, 2009,
is determined using a fuel flowmeter, in each monitoring plan shall contain the each report shall include the facility
accordance with appendix D to this information in § 75.53(f)(1)(i), (f)(2)(i), information provided in paragraphs
part, report NOX mass emissions as the and (f)(4) or § 75.53(h)(1)(i), and (h)(2)(i) (f)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this section, for
product of the maximum potential NOX in electronic format and the information each affected unit or group of units
emission rate and the actual measured in § 75.53(f)(1)(ii) and (f)(2)(ii) or monitored at a common stack. On and
hourly heat input rate. Alternatively, for § 75.53(h)(1)(ii) and (h)(2)(ii) in after January 1, 2009, only the facility
a unit with NOX add-on emission hardcopy format. On and after January identification information provided in
controls, for each unit operating hour in 1, 2009, each monitoring plan shall paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A) of this section is
which the bypass stack is used but the contain the information in required.
add-on NOX emission controls are not § 75.53(h)(1)(i), and (h)(2)(i) in * * * * *
bypassed, the owner or operator may electronic format and the information in (ii) * * *
report the maximum controlled NOX § 75.53(h)(1)(ii) and (h)(2)(ii) in (K) Supplementary RATA information
emission rate (MCR) instead of the hardcopy format, only. For units using required under § 75.59(a)(7), except that:
maximum potential NOX emission rate the low mass emissions excepted (1) The applicable data elements
provided that the add-on controls are methodology under § 75.19, prior to under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(A) through (T)
documented to be operating properly, as January 1, 2009, the monitoring plan and under § 75.59(a)(7)(iii)(A) through
described in the quality assurance/ shall include the additional information (M) shall be reported for flow RATAs at
quality control program for the unit, in § 75.53(f)(5)(i) and (f)(5)(ii) or circular or rectangular stacks (or ducts)
required by section 1 in appendix B of § 75.53(h)(4)(i) and (h)(4)(ii). On and in which angular compensation for yaw
this part. To provide the necessary after January 1, 2009, for units using the and/or pitch angles is used (i.e., Method
2F or 2G in appendices A–1 and A–2 to ■ n. Revising paragraph (c)(7)(iii)(L); (E) Data Validation. For second and
part 60 of this chapter), with or without ■ o. Revising paragraph (c)(8)(ii); and third quarter linearity checks performed
wall effects adjustments; ■ p. Revising paragraph (c)(11). by the applicable deadline (i.e., April 30
(2) The applicable data elements The revisions read as follows: or July 30), data validation shall be done
under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(A) through (T) in accordance with sections 2.2.3(a), (b),
§ 75.74 Annual and ozone season
and under § 75.59(a)(7)(iii)(A) through (c), (e), and (h) of Appendix B to this
monitoring and reporting requirements.
(M) shall be reported for any flow RATA part. However, if a required linearity
run at a circular stack in which Method * * * * * check for the second calendar quarter is
2 in appendices A–1 and A–2 to part 60 (c) * * * not completed by April 30, or if a
of this chapter is used and a wall effects (2) * * * required linearity check for the third
adjustment factor is determined by (i) * * *
calendar quarter is not completed by
direct measurement; (D) If the linearity check is not
July 30, data from the monitoring
(3) The data under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(T) completed by April 30, data validation
system (or range) shall be invalid,
shall be reported for all flow RATAs at shall be determined in accordance with
beginning with the first unit operating
circular stacks in which Method 2 in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(E) of this section.
hour on or after May 1 or July 31,
appendices A–1 and A–2 to part 60 of (ii) * * *
(F) Data Validation. For each RATA respectively. The owner or operator
this chapter is used and a default wall shall continue to invalidate all data
effects adjustment factor is applied; and that is performed by April 30, data
validation shall be done according to from the CEMS until either:
(4) The data under § 75.59(a)(7)(ix)(A) (1) The required linearity check of the
through (F) shall be reported for all flow sections 2.3.2(a)–(j) of appendix B to
this part. However, if a required RATA CEMS has been performed and passed;
RATAs at rectangular stacks or ducts in or
which Method 2 in appendices A–1 and is not completed by April 30, data from
the monitoring system shall be invalid, (2) A probationary calibration error
A–2 to part 60 of this chapter is used test of the CEMS is passed in
and a wall effects adjustment factor is beginning with the first unit operating
hour on or after May 1. The owner or accordance with § 75.20(b)(3)(ii). Once
applied. the probationary calibration error test
operator shall continue to invalidate all
* * * * * has been passed, the owner or operator
data from the CEMS until either:
■ 35. Section 75.74 is amended by: (1) The required RATA of the CEMS shall perform the required linearity
■ a. Removing the phrase ‘‘In the time
has been performed and passed; or check in accordance with the
period prior to the start of the current (2) A probationary calibration error conditional data validation provisions
ozone season (i.e., in the period test of the CEMS is passed in and within the 168 unit or stack
extending from October 1 of the accordance with § 75.20(b)(3)(ii). Once operating hour time frame specified in
previous calendar year through April 30 the probationary calibration error test § 75.20(b)(3) (subject to the restrictions
of the current calendar year), the’’, and has been passed, the owner or operator in paragraph (c)(3)(xii) of this section),
adding in its place the word ‘‘The’’, in shall perform the required RATA in and the term ‘‘quality assurance’’ shall
paragraph (c)(2) introductory text; accordance with the conditional data apply instead of the term
■ b. Adding the words ‘‘in the second ‘‘recertification.’’ However, in lieu of the
validation provisions and within the
calendar quarter no later than April 30’’ 720 unit or stack operating hour time provisions in § 75.20(b)(3)(ix), the
to the end of paragraph (c)(2)(i) frame specified in § 75.20(b)(3) (subject owner or operator shall follow the
introductory text; to the restrictions in paragraph applicable provisions in paragraphs
■ c. Removing the phrase ‘‘of the current (c)(3)(xi) and (c)(3)(xii) of this section.
(c)(3)(xii) of this section), and the term
calendar year’’ from the first sentence, (F) A pre-season linearity check
‘‘quality assurance’’ shall apply instead
and removing the last sentence of performed and passed in April satisfies
of the term ‘‘recertification.’’ However,
paragraph (c)(2)(i)(C); the linearity check requirement for the
in lieu of the provisions in
■ d. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(i)(D); second quarter.
■ e. Adding the words ‘‘in the first or
§ 75.20(b)(3)(ix), the owner or operator
shall follow the applicable provisions in (G) The third quarter linearity check
second calendar quarter, but no later requirement in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B) of
than April 30’’ to the end of the first paragraphs (c)(3)(xi) and (c)(3)(xii) of
this section. this section is waived if:
sentence, and by removing the second (1) Due to infrequent unit operation,
sentence of paragraph (c)(2)(ii) (3) * * *
(ii) For each gas monitor required by the 168 operating hour conditional data
introductory text; validation period associated with a pre-
■ f. Removing the words ‘‘of the current
this subpart, linearity checks shall be
performed in the second and third season linearity check extends into the
calendar year’’ from paragraph third quarter; and
(c)(2)(ii)(E); calendar quarters, as follows:
(A) For the second calendar quarter, (2) A linearity check is performed and
■ g. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(F);
the pre-ozone season linearity check passed within that conditional data
■ h. Removing paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(G)
required under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this validation period.
and (c)(2)(ii)(H);
■ i. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii); section shall be performed by April 30. * * * * *
■ j. Removing and reserving paragraphs (B) For the third calendar quarter, a (6) * * *
(c)(3)(vi) through (viii); linearity check shall be performed and (iii) For the time periods described in
■ k. Removing all occurrences of the passed no later than July 30. paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(C) and (c)(2)(ii)(E) of
words ‘‘§ 75.31, § 75.33, or § 75.37’’ and (C) Conduct each linearity check in this section, hourly emission data and
adding in their place the words accordance with the general procedures the results of all daily calibration error
‘‘§§ 75.31 through 75.37’’ in paragraphs in section 6.2 of appendix A to this part, tests and flow monitor interference
(c)(3)(xi), (c)(3)(xii)(A), and (c)(3)(xii)(B); except that the data validation checks shall be recorded. The owner or
■ l. Revising paragraph (c)(6)(iii); procedures in sections 6.2(a) through (f) operator may opt to report unit
■ m. Removing the words ‘‘October 1 of of appendix A do not apply. operating data, daily calibration error
the previous calendar year’’ and adding (D) Each linearity check shall be done test and flow monitor interference check
in its place the words ‘‘January 1’’ in ‘‘hands-off,’’ as described in section results, and hourly emission data in the
paragraph (c)(6)(v); 2.2.3(c) of appendix B to this part. time period from April 1 through April
30. However, only the data recorded in ■ 37. Section 75.81 is amended by: of this part), or Method 30B is used,
the time period from May 1 through ■ a. Removing the words ‘‘or § 75.12(b)’’ paired samples are required for each test
September 30 shall be used for NOX and ‘‘or § 75.12,’’ from paragraph (a)(3); run and the runs must be long enough
mass compliance determination; ■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(4); to ensure that sufficient Hg is collected
* * * * * ■ c. Revising paragraph (c)(1); to analyze. When Method 29 in
(7) * * * ■ d. Revising paragraph (c)(2); appendix A–8 to part 60 of this chapter
(iii) * * * ■ e. Removing Eq. 1 from paragraph or the Ontario Hydro method is used,
(L) In § 75.34(a)(3) and (a)(5), the (d)(1); the test results shall be based on the
phrases ‘‘720 quality-assured monitor ■ f. Revising paragraph (d)(2); vapor phase Hg collected in the back-
operating hours within the ozone ■ g. Adding paragraph (d)(4)(iv); and half of the sampling trains (i.e., the non-
season’’ and ‘‘2160 quality-assured ■ h. Revising paragraphs (d)(5) and
filterable impinger catches). For each
monitor operating hours within the (e)(1). Method 29 in appendix A–8 to part 60
ozone season’’ apply instead of ‘‘720 The revisions and additions read as of this chapter, Method 30B, or Ontario
quality-assured monitor operating follows: Hydro method test run, the paired trains
hours’’ and ‘‘2160 quality-assured § 75.81 Monitoring of Hg mass emissions must meet the relative deviation (RD)
monitor operating hours’’, respectively. and heat input at the unit level. requirement specified in § 75.22(a)(7) or
(8) * * * Method 30B, as applicable. If the RD
(ii) For units with add-on emission * * * * *
(a) * * * specification is met, the results of the
controls, using the missing data options
(4) If heat input is required to be two samples shall be averaged
in §§ 75.34(a)(1) through 75.34(a)(5), the
reported under the applicable State or arithmetically.
range of operating parameters for add-on
emission controls (as defined in the Federal Hg mass emission reduction (iii) If the unit is equipped with flue
quality assurance/quality control program that adopts the requirements of gas desulfurization or add-on Hg
program for the unit required by section this subpart, the owner or operator must emission controls, the controls must be
1 in appendix B to this part) and meet the general operating requirements operating normally during the testing,
information for verifying proper for a flow monitoring system and an O2 and, for the purpose of establishing
operation of the add-on emission or CO2 monitoring system to measure proper operation of the controls, the
controls during missing data periods, as heat input rate. owner or operator shall record
described in § 75.34(d). * * * * * parametric data or SO2 concentration
* * * * * (c) * * * data in accordance with § 75.58(b)(3)(i).
(11) Units may qualify to use the (1) The owner or operator must
(iv) If two or more of units of the same
optional NOX mass emissions perform Hg emission testing one year or
type qualify as a group of identical units
estimation protocol for gas-fired and oil- less before the compliance date in
in accordance with § 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(B),
fired peaking units in appendix E to this § 75.80(b), to determine the Hg
the owner or operator may test a subset
part on an ozone season basis. In order concentration (i.e., total vapor phase Hg)
of these units in lieu of testing each unit
to be allowed to use this methodology, in the effluent.
individually. If this option is selected,
the unit must meet the definition of (i) The testing shall be performed
the number of units required to be
‘‘peaking unit’’ in § 72.2 of this chapter, using one of the Hg reference methods
tested shall be determined from Table
except that the words ‘‘year’’, ‘‘calendar listed in § 75.22(a)(7), and shall consist
of a minimum of 3 runs at the normal LM–4 in § 75.19. For the purposes of the
year’’ and ‘‘calendar years’’ in that required retests under paragraph (d)(4)
definition shall be replaced by the unit operating load, while combusting
coal. The coal combusted during the of this section, EPA strongly
words ‘‘ozone season’’, ‘‘ozone season’’,
testing shall be representative of the recommends that (to the extent
and ‘‘ozone seasons’’, respectively. In
coal that will be combusted at the start practicable) the same subset of the units
addition, in the definition of the term
of the Hg mass emissions reduction not be tested in two successive retests,
‘‘capacity factor’’ in § 72.2 of this
program (preferably from the same and that every effort be made to ensure
chapter, the word ‘‘annual’’ shall be
replaced by the words ‘‘ozone season’’ source(s) of supply). that each unit in the group of identical
and the number ‘‘8,760’’ shall be (ii) The minimum time per run shall units is tested in a timely manner.
replaced by the number ‘‘3,672’’. be 1 hour if Method 30A is used. If (2)(i) Based on the results of the
either Method 29 in appendix A–8 to emission testing, Equation 1 of this
§ 75.80 [Amended] part 60 of this chapter, ASTM D6784– section shall be used to provide a
■ 36. Section 75.80(f)(1)(iii) is amended 02 (the Ontario Hydro method) conservative estimate of the annual Hg
by removing the words ‘‘or § 75.12(b),’’. (incorporated by reference under § 75.6 mass emissions from the unit:
E = N K CHg Q max ( Eq. 1)
Where: CHg = The highest Hg concentration (µg/scm) operation is restricted to less than 8,760
E = Estimated annual Hg mass emissions from any of the test runs or 0.50 µg/scm, hours per year). If the permit restricts
whichever is greater
from the affected unit, (ounces/year) the annual unit heat input but not the
Qmax = Maximum potential flow rate,
K = Units conversion constant, 9.978 x 10¥10 number of annual unit operating hours,
determined according to section 2.1.4.1
oz-scm/µg-scf of appendix A to this part, (scfh) the owner or operator may divide the
N = Either 8,760 (the number of hours in a allowable annual heat input (mmBtu) by
(ii) Equation 1 of this section assumes

year) or the maximum number of the design rated heat input capacity of
that the unit operates at its maximum
operating hours per year (if less than the unit (mmBtu/hr) to determine the
8,760) allowed by the unit’s Federally-
potential flow rate, either year-round or
for the maximum number of hours value of ‘‘N’’ in Equation 1. Also, note
enforceable operating permit.
allowed by the operating permit (if unit that if the highest Hg concentration
ER24JA08.018</GPH>
measured in any test run is less than paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. If testing option is chosen, the testing
0.50 µg/scm, a default value of 0.50 µg/ the test results demonstrate that the shall be done at a combined load
scm must be used in the calculations. units sharing the common stack qualify corresponding to the designated normal
* * * * * as low mass emitters, the default Hg load level (low, mid, or high) for the
(d) * * * concentration used for reporting Hg units sharing the common stack, in
(2) Following initial certification, the mass emissions at the common stack accordance with section 6.5.2.1 of
same default Hg concentration value shall either be the highest value appendix A to this part. Provided that
that was used to estimate the unit’s obtained in any test run or 0.50 µg/scm, the required load level is attained and
annual Hg mass emissions under whichever is greater. that all of the units sharing the stack are
paragraph (c) of this section shall be (i) The initial emission testing fed from the same on-site coal supply
reported for each unit operating hour, required under paragraph (c) of this during normal operation, it is not
except as otherwise provided in section may be performed at the necessary for all of the units sharing the
paragraph (d)(4)(iv) or (d)(6) of this common stack if the following stack to be in operation during a retest.
section. The default Hg concentration conditions are met. Otherwise, testing of However, if two or more of the units
value shall be updated as appropriate, the individual units (or a subset of the that share the stack are fed from
according to paragraph (d)(5) of this units, if identical, as described in different on-site coal supplies (e.g., one
section. paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section) is unit burns low-sulfur coal for
required: compliance and the other combusts
* * * * * (A) The testing must be done at a
(4) * * * higher-sulfur coal), then either:
combined load corresponding to the (A) Perform the retest with all units in
(iv) An additional retest is required
designated normal load level (low, mid, normal operation; or
when there is a change in the coal rank
or high) for the units sharing the (B) If this is not possible, due to
of the primary fuel (e.g., when the
common stack, in accordance with circumstances beyond the control of the
primary fuel is switched from
section 6.5.2.1 of appendix A to this owner or operator (e.g., a forced unit
bituminous coal to lignite). Use ASTM
part; outage), perform the retest with the
D388–99 (incorporated by reference (B) All of the units that share the stack available units operating and assess the
under § 75.6 of this part) to determine must be operating in a normal, stable test results as follows. Use the Hg
the coal rank. The four principal coal manner and at typical load levels during concentration obtained in the retest for
ranks are anthracitic, bituminous, the emission testing. The coal reporting purposes under this part if the
subbituminous, and lignitic. The ranks combusted in each unit during the concentration is greater than or equal to
of anthracite coal refuse (culm) and testing must be representative of the the value obtained in the most recent
bituminous coal refuse (gob) shall be coal that will be combusted in that unit test. If the retested value is lower than
anthracitic and bituminous, at the start of the Hg mass emission the Hg concentration from the previous
respectively. The retest shall be reduction program (preferably from the test, continue using the higher value
performed within 720 unit operating same source(s) of supply); from the previous test for reporting
hours of the change. (C) If flue gas desulfurization and/or purposes and use that same higher Hg
(5) The default Hg concentration used add-on Hg emission controls are used to concentration value in Equation 1 to
for reporting under § 75.84 shall be reduce level the emissions exiting from determine the due date for the next
updated after each required retest. This the common stack, these emission retest, as described in paragraph
includes retests that are required prior controls must be operating normally (e)(1)(iii) of this section.
to the compliance date in § 75.80(b). during the emission testing and, for the (iii) If testing is done at the common
The updated value shall either be the purpose of establishing proper operation stack, the due date for the next
highest Hg concentration measured in of the controls, the owner or operator scheduled retest shall be determined as
any of the test runs or 0.50 µg/scm, shall record parametric data or SO2 follows:
whichever is greater. The updated value concentration data in accordance with (A) Substitute the maximum potential
shall be applied beginning with the first § 75.58(b)(3)(i); flow rate for the common stack (as
unit operating hour in which Hg (D) When calculating E, the estimated defined in the monitoring plan) and the
emissions data are required to be maximum potential annual Hg mass highest Hg concentration from any test
reported after completion of the retest, emissions from the stack, substitute the run (or 0.50 µg/scm, if greater) into
except as provided in paragraph maximum potential flow rate through Equation 1;
(d)(4)(iv) of this section, where the need the common stack (as defined in the (B) If the value of E obtained from
to retest is triggered by a change in the monitoring plan) and the highest Equation 1, rounded to the nearest
coal rank of the primary fuel. In that concentration from any test run (or 0.50 ounce, is greater than 144 times the
case, apply the updated default Hg µg/scm, if greater) into Equation 1; number of units sharing the common
concentration beginning with the first (E) The calculated value of E shall be stack, but less than or equal to 464 times
unit operating hour in which Hg divided by the number of units sharing the number of units sharing the stack,
emissions are required to be reported the stack. If the result, when rounded to the next retest is due in two QA
after the date and hour of the fuel the nearest ounce, does not exceed 464 operating quarters;
switch. ounces, the units qualify to use the low (C) If the value of E obtained from
* * * * * mass emission methodology; and Equation 1, rounded to the nearest
(e) * * * (F) If the units qualify to use the ounce, is less than or equal to 144 times
(1) The methodology may not be used methodology, the default Hg the number of units sharing the
for reporting Hg mass emissions at a concentration used for reporting at the common stack, the next retest is due in
common stack unless all of the units common stack shall be the highest value four QA operating quarters.
using the common stack are affected obtained in any test run or 0.50 µg/scm, * * * * *
units and the units’ combined potential whichever is greater; or ■ 38. Section 75.82 is amended by:
to emit does not exceed 464 ounces of (ii) The retests required under ■ a. Adding paragraph (b)(3);
Hg per year times the number of units paragraph (d)(4) of this section may also ■ b. Removing the word ‘‘or’’ at the end
sharing the stack, in accordance with be done at the common stack. If this of paragraph (c)(2);
■ c. Removing the period at the end of input rate at each stack or duct (mmBtu/ and under § 75.59(a)(7)(iii)(A) through
paragraph (c)(3), and adding in its place hr), according to section 5.2 of appendix (M) shall be reported for flow RATAs at
the phrase ‘‘; or’’; F to this part; and circular or rectangular stacks (or ducts)
■ d. Adding paragraph (c)(4); (ii) Calculate the hourly heat input at in which angular compensation for yaw
■ e. Removing the word ‘‘or’’ at the end each stack or duct (in mmBtu) by and/or pitch angles is used (i.e., Method
of paragraph (d)(1); multiplying the measured stack (or 2F or 2G in appendices A–1 and A–2 to
■ f. Removing the period at the end of duct) heat input rate by the part 60 of this chapter), with or without
paragraph (d)(2), and adding in its place corresponding stack (or duct) operating wall effects adjustments;
the phrase ‘‘; or’’; and time; and (2) The applicable data elements
■ g. Adding paragraph (d)(3). (iii) Determine the hourly unit heat under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(A) through (T)
The revisions and additions read as input by summing the hourly stack (or and under § 75.59(a)(7)(iii)(A) through
follows: duct) heat input values. (M) shall be reported for any flow RATA
§ 75.82 Monitoring of Hg mass emissions ■ 39. Section 75.84 is amended by: run at a circular stack in which Method
and heat input at common and multiple ■ a. Removing ‘‘§ 75.53(e)(1)’’ and 2 in appendices A–1 and A–2 to part 60
stacks. ‘‘§ 75.53(e)(2)’’ and adding in their place of this chapter is used and a wall effects
* * * * * ‘‘§ 75.53(g)(1)’’ and ‘‘§ 75.53(g)(2)’’, in adjustment factor is determined by
(b) * * * paragraph (c)(3); direct measurement;
(3) If the monitoring option in ■ b. Removing the number ‘‘45’’ and (3) The data under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(T)
paragraph (b)(2) of this section is adding in its place the number ‘‘21’’ in shall be reported for all flow RATAs at
selected, and if heat input is required to paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2); circular stacks in which Method 2 in
be reported under the applicable State ■ c. Revising paragraph (f)(1) appendices A–1 and A–2 to part 60 of
or Federal Hg mass emission reduction introductory text; this chapter is used and a default wall
program that adopts the requirements of ■ d. Removing ‘‘§ 75.64(a)(1)’’ and effects adjustment factor is applied; and
this subpart, the owner or operator shall adding in its place ‘‘§ 75.64(a)(3)’’ in (4) The data under § 75.59(a)(7)(ix)(A)
either: paragraph (f)(1)(i); through (F) shall be reported for all flow
(i) Apportion the common stack heat ■ e. Removing the phrase ‘‘paragraph
RATAs at rectangular stacks or ducts in
input rate to the individual units (a)’’ and adding in its place the phrase which Method 2 in appendices A–1 and
according to the procedures in ‘‘paragraphs (a) and (b)’’ in paragraph A–2 to part 60 of this chapter is used
§ 75.16(e)(3); or (f)(1)(ii) introductory text; and and a wall effects adjustment factor is
(ii) Install a flow monitoring system ■ f. Revising paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(I).
applied.
and a diluent gas (O2 or CO2) monitoring The revisions read as follows: * * * * *
system in the duct leading from each ■ 40. Appendix A to Part 75 is amended
affected unit to the common stack, and § 75.84 Recordkeeping and reporting. by:
measure the heat input rate in each * * * * * ■ a. Revising paragraph (c) of section
duct, according to section 5.2 of (f) * * * 2.1.1.1;
appendix F to this part. (1) Electronic submission. Electronic ■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(2) of section
(c) * * * quarterly reports shall be submitted, 2.1.1.5;
(4) If the monitoring option in beginning with the calendar quarter ■ c. Revising paragraph (b)(2) of section
paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section containing the compliance date in 2.1.2.5;
is selected, and if heat input is required § 75.80(b), unless otherwise specified in ■ d. Adding a new fourth sentence after
to be reported under the applicable the final rule implementing a State or the third sentence of section 2.1.3;
State or Federal Hg mass emission Federal Hg mass emissions reduction ■ e. Revising paragraph (3) of section
reduction program that adopts the program that adopts the requirements of 3.2;
requirements of this subpart, the owner this subpart. The designated ■ f. Removing the phrase ‘‘continuous
or operator shall: representative for an affected unit shall emission monitoring system(s)’’ and
(i) Use the installed flow and diluent report the data and information in this adding in its place the phrase
monitors to determine the hourly heat paragraph (f)(1) and the applicable ‘‘monitoring component of a continuous
input rate at each stack (mmBtu/hr), compliance certification information in emission monitoring system that is’’ in
according to section 5.2 of appendix F paragraph (f)(2) of this section to the section 3.5;
to this part; and Administrator quarterly, except as ■ g. Adding the words ‘‘that meet the
(ii) Calculate the hourly heat input at definition for a NIST Traceable
otherwise provided in § 75.64(a) for
each stack (in mmBtu) by multiplying Reference Material (NTRM) provided in
units in long-term cold storage. Each
the measured stack heat input rate by § 72.2.’’ after the word ‘‘gases’’ in
electronic report must be submitted to
the corresponding stack operating time; section 5.1.3;
the Administrator within 30 days
and ■ h. Revising sections 5.1.4 and 5.1.9;
(iii) Determine the hourly unit heat following the end of each calendar
■ i. Redesignating section 6.1 as section
input by summing the hourly stack heat quarter. Except as otherwise provided in
§ 75.64(a)(4) and (a)(5), each electronic 6.1.1 and adding a new heading for 6.1;
input values. ■ j. Adding section 6.1.2;
(d) * * * report shall include the date of report ■ k. Revising the second and third
(3) If the monitoring option in generation and the following sentences and adding a new fourth
paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section information for each affected unit or sentence to section 6.2, introductory
is selected, and if heat input is required group of units monitored at a common text;
to be reported under the applicable stack: ■ l. Revising section 6.2(g);
State or Federal Hg mass emission * * * * * ■ m. Adding paragraph (h) to section
reduction program that adopts the (ii) * * * 6.2;

requirements of this subpart, the owner (I) Supplementary RATA information ■ n. Adding a new fourth sentence to
or operator shall: required under § 75.59(a)(7), except that: section 6.3.1, introductory text;
(i) Use the installed flow and diluent (1) The applicable data elements ■ o. Revising the introductory text of
monitors to determine the hourly heat under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(A) through (T) section 6.4;
■ p. Revising paragraph (e) in section Products (High-Temperature Method); ASTM percent of the reference value at any of the
6.5; D129–00, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in three gas levels. To calculate the
■ q. Removing the words ‘‘that uses Petroleum Products (General Bomb Method); measurement error at each level, take the
ASTM D2622–98, Standard Test Method for absolute value of the difference between the
CEMS to account for its emissions and
Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Wavelength reference value and mean CEM response,
for each unit that uses the optional fuel Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry, divide the result by the reference value, and
flow-to-load quality assurance test in for sulfur content of solid or liquid fuels; then multiply by 100. Alternatively, the
section 2.1.7 of appendix D to this part’’ ASTM D3176–89 (Reapproved 2002), results at any gas level are acceptable if the
from paragraph (a) of section 6.5.2.1; Standard Practice for Ultimate Analysis of absolute value of the difference between the
■ r. Adding the words ‘‘or mmBtu/hr’’ Coal and Coke; ASTM D240–00, Standard average monitor response and the average
after the words ‘‘klb/hr of steam Test Method for Heat of Combustion of reference value, i.e., |R¥A| in Equation A–4
production’’, and by adding the words Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb of this appendix, does not exceed 0.8 µg/m3.
‘‘or mmBtu/hr of thermal output’’ after Calorimeter; or ASTM D5865–01a, Standard The principal and alternative performance
Test Method for Gross Calorific Value of Coal specifications in this section also apply to the
the words ‘‘thousands of lb/hr of steam and Coke (all incorporated by reference single-level system integrity check described
load’’ in paragraph (a)(1) of section under § 75.6 of this part). in section 2.6 of appendix B to this part.
6.5.2.1;
* * * * * * * * * *
■ s. Adding the words ‘‘and units using
2.1.1.5 * * * 5.1 Reference Gases
the low mass emissions (LME) excepted (b) * * *
methodology under § 75.19’’ after the * * * * *
(2) For units with two SO2 spans and 5.1.4 EPA Protocol Gases
words ‘‘(except for peaking units’’ in the ranges, if the low range is exceeded, no (a) An EPA Protocol Gas is a calibration gas
second sentence in paragraph (c) of further action is required, provided that the mixture prepared and analyzed according to
section 6.5.2.1; high range is available and its most recent Section 2 of the ‘‘EPA Traceability Protocol
■ t. Adding the words ‘‘and LME units’’ calibration error test and linearity check have for Assay and Certification of Gaseous
after the words ‘‘For peaking units’’ in not expired. However, if either of these Calibration Standards,’’ September 1997,
quality assurance tests has expired and the EPA–600/R–97/121 or such revised
the third sentence in paragraph (d)(1) of high range is not able to provide quality
section 6.5.2.1; procedure as approved by the Administrator
assured data at the time of the low range (EPA Traceability Protocol).
■ u. Revising paragraph (e) of section exceedance or at any time during the (b) An EPA Protocol Gas must have a
6.5.2.1; continuation of the exceedance, report the specialty gas producer-certified uncertainty
■ v. Revising paragraph (c) in section MPC as the SO2 concentration until the (95-percent confidence interval) that must
6.5.6; readings return to the low range or until the
not be greater than 2.0 percent of the certified
■ w. Removing all occurrences of the high range is able to provide quality assured
concentration (tag value) of the gas mixture.
words ‘‘section 3.2’’ and adding in its data (unless the reason that the high-scale
The uncertainty must be calculated using the
range is not able to provide quality assured
place the words ‘‘section 8.1.3’’ in data is because the high-scale range has been
statistical procedures (or equivalent
paragraph (b)(3) of section 6.5.6, statistical techniques) that are listed in
exceeded; if the high-scale range is exceeded
paragraph (a) of section 6.5.6.2, and Section 2.1.8 of the EPA Traceability
follow the procedures in paragraph (b)(1) of
paragraph (a) of section 6.5.6.3; Protocol.
this section).
(c) On and after January 1, 2009, a specialty
■ x. Revising section 6.5.10; * * * * * gas producer advertising calibration gas
■ y. Adding two sentences at the end of 2.1.2.5 * * * certification with the EPA Traceability
section 7.6.1; (b) * * * Protocol or distributing calibration gases as
■ z. Revising the terms Rref and Lavg, in (2) For units with two NOX spans and ‘‘EPA Protocol Gas’’ must participate in the
paragraph (a) of section 7.7; ranges, if the low range is exceeded, no EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program
■ aa. Revising the terms (GHR)ref and further action is required, provided that the (PGVP) described in Section 2.1.10 of the
Lavg, in paragraph (c) of section 7.7; and high range is available and its most recent EPA Traceability Protocol or it cannot use
calibration error test and linearity check have ‘‘EPA’’ in any form of advertising for these
■ bb. Removing Figure 6 and adding in
not expired. However, if either of these products, unless approved by the
its place Figures 6a and 6b and revising quality assurance tests has expired and the
A through F and adding G at the end of Administrator. A specialty gas producer not
high range is not able to provide quality participating in the PGVP may not certify a
appendix A. assured data at the time of the low range calibration gas as an EPA Protocol Gas,
The revisions and additions read as exceedance or at any time during the unless approved by the Administrator.
follows: continuation of the exceedance, report the (d) A copy of EPA–600/R–97/121 is
MPC as the NOX concentration until the available from the National Technical
Appendix A to Part 75—Specifications readings return to the low range or until the Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
and Procedures high range is able to provide quality assured Springfield, VA, 703–605–6585 or http://
data (unless the reason that the high-scale www.ntis.gov, and from http://www.epa.gov/
* * * * *
range is not able to provide quality assured ttn/emc/news.html or http://www.epa.gov/
2. Equipment Specifications data is because the high-scale range has been appcdwww/tsb/index.html.
2.1.1.1 Maximum Potential Concentration exceeded; if the high-scale range is exceeded,
follow the procedures in paragraph (b)(1) of * * * * *
* * * * * this section). 5.1.9 Mercury Standards
(c) When performing fuel sampling to For 7-day calibration error tests of Hg
determine the MPC, use ASTM Methods: * * * * * concentration monitors and for daily
ASTM D3177–02 (Reapproved 2007), 2.1.3 CO2 and O2 Monitors calibration error tests of Hg monitors, either
Standard Test Methods for Total Sulfur in the * * * An alternative CO2 span value below NIST-traceable elemental Hg standards (as
Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke; ASTM 6.0 percent may be used if an appropriate defined in § 72.2 of this chapter) or a NIST-
D4239–02, Standard Test Methods for Sulfur technical justification is included in the traceable source of oxidized Hg (as defined
in the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke hardcopy monitoring plan. in § 72.2 of this chapter) may be used. For
Using High-Temperature Tube Furnace * * * * * linearity checks, NIST-traceable elemental Hg
Combustion Methods; ASTM D4294–98, 3.2 * * * standards shall be used. For 3-level and
Standard Test Method for Sulfur in (3) For the linearity check and the 3-level single-point system integrity checks under
Petroleum and Petroleum Products by system integrity check of an Hg monitor, § 75.20(c)(1)(vi), sections 6.2(g) and 6.3.1 of
Energy-Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence which are required, respectively, under this appendix, and sections 2.1.1, 2.2.1 and
Spectrometry; ASTM D1552–01, Standard § 75.20(c)(1)(ii) and (c)(1)(vi), the 2.6 of appendix B to this part, a NIST-
Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum measurement error shall not exceed 10.0 traceable source of oxidized Hg shall be used.
Alternatively, other NIST-traceable standards described in § 75.20(c)(1)(vi) and in sections Refer to Figures 6a and 6b in this appendix
may be used for the required checks, subject 2.1.1, 2.2.1 and 2.6 of appendix B to this part. for example calculations of upscale and
to the approval of the Administrator. (h) For Hg concentration monitors, if downscale cycle times. Report the slower of
Notwithstanding these requirements, Hg moisture is added to the calibration gas the two cycle times (upscale or downscale)
calibration standards that are not NIST- during the required linearity checks or as the cycle time for the analyzer. Prior to
traceable may be used for the tests described system integrity checks, the moisture content January 1, 2009 for the NOX-diluent
in this section until December 31, 2009. of the calibration gas must be accounted for. continuous emission monitoring system test,
However, on and after January 1, 2010, only Under these circumstances, the dry basis either record and report the longer cycle time
NIST-traceable calibration standards shall be concentration of the calibration gas shall be of the two component analyzers as the
used for these tests. used to calculate the linearity error or system cycle time or record the cycle time for
* * * * * measurement error (as applicable). each component analyzer separately (as
6.1 General Requirements * * * * * applicable). On and after January 1, 2009,
6.3.1 Gas Monitor 7-day Calibration Error record the cycle time for each component
* * * * * analyzer separately. For time-shared systems,
6.1.2 Requirements for Air Emission Test
* * * Also for Hg monitors, if moisture is perform the cycle time tests at each probe
Testing Bodies locations that will be polled within the same
(a) On and after January 1, 2009, any Air added to the calibration gas, the added
moisture must be accounted for and the dry- 15-minute period during monitoring system
Emission Testing Body (AETB) conducting operations. To determine the cycle time for
relative accuracy test audits of CEMS and basis concentration of the calibration gas
shall be used to calculate the calibration time-shared systems, at each monitoring
sorbent trap monitoring systems under this location, report the sum of the cycle time
part must conform to the requirements of error.
observed at that monitoring location plus the
ASTM D7036–04 (incorporated by reference * * * * * sum of the time required for all purge cycles
under § 75.6 of this part). This section is not 6.4. Cycle Time Test (as determined by the continuous emission
applicable to daily operation, daily Perform cycle time tests for each pollutant monitoring system manufacturer) at each of
calibration error checks, daily flow concentration monitor and continuous the probe locations of the time-shared
interference checks, quarterly linearity emission monitoring system while the unit is systems. For monitors with dual ranges,
checks or routine maintenance of CEMS. operating, according to the following
report the test results for each range
(b) The AETB shall provide to the affected procedures. Use a zero-level and a high-level
separately. Cycle time test results are
source(s) certification that the AETB operates calibration gas (as defined in section 5.2 of
acceptable for monitor or monitoring system
in conformance with, and that data submitted this appendix) alternately. For Hg monitors,
certification, recertification or diagnostic
to the Agency has been collected in the calibration gas used for this test may
testing if none of the cycle times exceed 15
accordance with, the requirements of ASTM either be the elemental or oxidized form of
minutes. The status of emissions data from a
D7036–04 (incorporated by reference under Hg. To determine the downscale cycle time,
monitor prior to and during a cycle time test
§ 75.6 of this part). This certification may be measure the concentration of the flue gas
period shall be determined as follows:
provided in the form of: emissions until the response stabilizes.
(1) A certificate of accreditation of relevant Record the stable emissions value. Inject a * * * * *
scope issued by a recognized, national zero-level concentration calibration gas into 6.5 * * *
accreditation body; or the probe tip (or injection port leading to the (e) Complete each single-load relative
(2) A letter of certification signed by a calibration cell, for in situ systems with no accuracy test audit within a period of 168
member of the senior management staff of the probe). Record the time of the zero gas consecutive unit operating hours, as defined
AETB. injection, using the data acquisition and in § 72.2 of this chapter (or, for CEMS
(c) The AETB shall either provide a handling system (DAHS). Next, allow the installed on common stacks or bypass stacks,
Qualified Individual on-site to conduct or monitor to measure the concentration of the 168 consecutive stack operating hours, as
shall oversee all relative accuracy testing zero gas until the response stabilizes. Record defined in § 72.2 of this chapter).
carried out by the AETB as required in ASTM the stable ending calibration gas reading. Notwithstanding this requirement, up to 336
D7036–04 (incorporated by reference under Determine the downscale cycle time as the consecutive unit or stack operating hours
§ 75.6 of this part). The Qualified Individual time it takes for 95.0 percent of the step may be taken to complete the RATA of a Hg
shall provide the affected source(s) with change to be achieved between the stable monitoring system, when ASTM 6784–02
copies of the qualification credentials stack emissions value and the stable ending (incorporated by reference under § 75.6 of
relevant to the scope of the testing zero gas reading. Then repeat the procedure, this part) or Method 29 in appendix A–8 to
conducted. starting with stable stack emissions and part 60 of this chapter is used as the
* * * * * injecting the high-level gas, to determine the reference method. For 2-level and 3-level
6.2 Linearity Check (General Procedures) upscale cycle time, which is the time it takes flow monitor RATAs, complete all of the
* * * Notwithstanding these for 95.0 percent of the step change to be RATAs at all levels, to the extent practicable,
requirements, if the SO2 or NOX span value achieved between the stable stack emissions within a period of 168 consecutive unit (or
for a particular monitor range is ≤ 30 ppm, value and the stable ending high-level gas stack) operating hours; however, if this is not
that range is exempted from the linearity reading. Use the following criteria to assess possible, up to 720 consecutive unit (or
when a stable reading of stack emissions or stack) operating hours may be taken to
check requirements of this part, for initial
calibration gas concentration has been complete a multiple-load flow RATA.
certification, recertification, and for on-going
attained. A stable value is equivalent to a
quality-assurance. For units with two * * * * *
reading with a change of less than 2.0 percent
measurement ranges (high and low) for a 6.5.2.1 * * *
of the span value for 2 minutes, or a reading
particular parameter, perform a linearity (e) The owner or operator shall report the
with a change of less than 6.0 percent from
check on both the low scale (except for SO2 upper and lower boundaries of the range of
the measured average concentration over 6
or NOX span values ≤ 30 ppm) and the high operation for each unit (or combination of
minutes. Alternatively, the reading is
scale. Note that for a NOX-diluent monitoring units, for common stacks), in units of
considered stable if it changes by no more
system with two NOX measurement ranges, if megawatts or thousands of lb/hr or mmBtu/
than 0.5 ppm, 0.5 µg/m3 (for Hg), or 0.2%
the low NOX scale has a span value ≤ 30 ppm CO2 or O2 (as applicable) for two minutes. hr of steam production or ft/sec (as
and is exempt from linearity checks, this (Owners or operators of systems which do applicable), in the electronic monitoring plan
does not exempt either the diluent monitor not record data in 1-minute or 3-minute required under § 75.53. Except for peaking
or the high NOX scale (if the span is > 30 intervals may petition the Administrator units and LME units, the owner or operator
ppm) from linearity check requirements. under § 75.66 for alternative stabilization shall indicate, in the electronic monitoring
* * * * * criteria). For monitors or monitoring systems plan, the load level (or levels) designated as
(g) For Hg monitors, follow the guidelines that perform a series of operations (such as normal under this section and shall also
in section 2.2.3 of this appendix in addition purge, sample, and analyze), time the indicate the two most frequently used load
to the applicable procedures in section 6.2 injections of the calibration gases so they will levels.
when performing the system integrity checks produce the longest possible cycle time. * * * * *
6.5.6 * * * SO2; Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D or 7E in average Hg concentration measured by the

(c) For Hg monitoring systems, use the appendix A–4 to part 60 of this chapter for paired traps in the calculation of ‘‘d’’.
same basic approach for traverse point NOX, excluding the exceptions of Method 7E * * * * *
selection that is used for the other gas in appendix A–4 to part 60 of this chapter
7.7 * * *
monitoring system RATAs, except that the identified in § 75.22(a)(5); and for Hg, either
(a) * * *
stratification test provisions in sections 8.1.3 ASTM D6784–02 (the Ontario Hydro
through 8.1.3.5 of Method 30A shall apply, Method) (incorporated by reference under Rref = Reference value of the flow-to-load
rather than the provisions of sections 6.5.6.1 § 75.6 of this part), Method 29 in appendix ratio, from the most recent normal-load
through 6.5.6.3 of this appendix. A–8 to part 60 of this chapter, Method 30A, flow RATA, scfh/megawatts, scfh/1000
6.5.10 Reference Methods or Method 30B When using Method 7E in lb/hr of steam, or scfh/(mmBtu/hr of
The following methods are from appendix appendix A–4 to part 60 of this chapter for steam output).
A to part 60 of this chapter or have been measuring NOX concentration, total NOX, * * * * *
published by ASTM, and are the reference both NO and NO2, must be measured. Lavg = Average unit load during the normal-
methods for performing relative accuracy test * * * * * load flow RATA, megawatts, 1000 lb/hr
audits under this part: Method 1 or 1A in 7.6 Bias Test and Adjustment Factor of steam, or mmBtu/hr of thermal output.
appendix A–1 to part 60 of this chapter for * * * * * * * * * *
siting; Method 2 in appendices A–1 and A– 7.6.1 * * * To calculate bias for a Hg (c) * * *
2 to part 60 of this chapter or its allowable monitoring system when using the Ontario
alternatives in appendix A to part 60 of this (GHR)ref = Reference value of the gross heat
Hydro Method or Method 29 in appendix A–
chapter (except for Methods 2B and 2E in rate at the time of the most recent
8 to part 60 of this chapter, ‘‘d’’ is, for each
appendix A–1 to part 60 of this chapter) for normal-load flow RATA, Btu/kwh, Btu/
data point, the difference between the
stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate; average Hg concentration value (in µg/m3) lb steam load, or Btu heat input/mmBtu
Methods 3, 3A or 3B in appendix A–2 to part from the paired Ontario Hydro or Method 29 steam output.
60 of this chapter for O2 and CO2; Method 4 in appendix A–8 to part 60 of this chapter * * * * *
in appendix A–3 to part 60 of this chapter sampling trains and the concentration Lavg = Average unit load during the normal-
for moisture; Methods 6, 6A or 6C in measured by the monitoring system. For load flow RATA, megawatts, 1000 lb/hr
appendix A–4 to part 60 of this chapter for sorbent trap monitoring systems, use the of steam, or mmBtu/hr thermal output.
ER24JA08.000</GPH>
A. To determine the upscale cycle time ■ 41. Appendix B to Part 75 is amended Appendix B to Part 75—Quality
(Figure 6a), measure the flue gas emissions by: Assurance and Quality Control
until the response stabilizes. Record the ■ a. Adding section 1.1.4; Procedures
stabilized value (see section 6.4 of this ■ b. Revising section 2.1.1;
appendix for the stability criteria). 1. Quality Assurance/Quality Control
■ c. Revising paragraph (2) of section Program
B. Inject a high-level calibration gas into
the port leading to the calibration cell or 2.1.1.2; * * * * *
thimble (Point B). Allow the analyzer to ■ d. Revising paragraph (2) of section 1.1.4 The requirements in section 6.1.2 of
stabilize. Record the stabilized value. 2.1.5.1; appendix A to this part shall be met by any
C. Determine the step change. The step ■ e. Adding paragraph (3) to section Air Emissions Testing Body (AETB)
change is equal to the difference between the 2.1.5.1; performing the semiannual/annual RATAs
final stable calibration gas value (Point D) ■ f. Adding a new fourth sentence to described in section 2.3 of this appendix and
and the stabilized stack emissions value the Hg emission tests described in §§ 75.81(c)
paragraph (e) of section 2.2.3; and 75.81(d)(4).
(Point A). ■ g. Revising the terms ‘‘Rh’’ and ‘‘Lh’’ in
D. Take 95% of the step change value and paragraph (a) of section 2.2.5; * * * * *
add the result to the stabilized stack 2. Frequency of Testing
■ h. Revising the terms ‘‘(GHR)h’’ and
emissions value (Point A). Determine the
‘‘Lh’’ in paragraph (a)(2) of section 2.2.5; * * * * *
time at which 95% of the step change
■ i. Removing the word ‘‘five’’ and 2.1.1 Calibration Error Test
occurred (Point C).
adding in its place the word ‘‘twenty’’, Except as provided in section 2.1.1.2 of
E. Calculate the upscale cycle time by
and by removing the word ‘‘years’’ and this appendix, perform the daily calibration
subtracting the time at which the calibration error test of each gas monitoring system
gas was injected (Point B) from the time at adding in its place the word ‘‘quarters’’,
(including moisture monitoring systems
which 95% of the step change occurred in paragraph (c)(4) of section 2.3.1.3; consisting of wet- and dry-basis O2 analyzers)
(Point C). In this example, upscale cycle time ■ j. Revising paragraphs (d) and (g) of according to the procedures in section 6.3.1
= (11¥5) = 6 minutes. section 2.3.2; of appendix A to this part, and perform the
F. To determine the downscale cycle time ■ k. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (c) of daily calibration error test of each flow
(Figure 6b) repeat the procedures above, section 2.3.3; monitoring system according to the
except that a zero gas is injected when the ■ l. Adding paragraph (d) to section procedure in section 6.3.2 of appendix A to
flue gas emissions have stabilized, and 95% this part. When two measurement ranges
2.3.3; (low and high) are required for a particular
of the step change in concentration is
■ m. Revising section 2.6; parameter, perform sufficient calibration

subtracted from the stabilized stack
emissions value. ■ n. Revising Figure 1; and error tests on each range to validate the data
G. Compare the upscale and downscale ■ o. Revising Figure 2. recorded on that range, according to the
cycle time values. The longer of these two The revisions and additions read as criteria in section 2.1.5 of this appendix.
follows: * * * * *
ER24JA08.001</GPH>
times is the cycle time for the analyzer.
2.1.1.2 * * * mmBtu heat input/mmBtu thermal has been selected, in which case the
(2) For each monitoring system that has output. beginning and end of the out-of-control
passed the off-line calibration demonstration, * * * * * period shall be determined in accordance
off-line calibration error tests may be used on Lh = Hourly unit load, megawatts, 1000 lb/ with § 75.20(b)(3)(vii)(A) and (B).
a limited basis to validate data, in accordance hr of steam, or mmBtu/hr thermal output; (2) This paragraph (g)(2) applies only to a
with paragraph (2) in section 2.1.5.1 of this must be within + 10.0 percent of Lavg during NOX pollutant concentration monitor that
appendix. the most recent normal-load flow RATA. serves both as the NOX component of a NOX
* * * * * concentration monitoring system (to measure
* * * * * NOX mass emissions) and as the NOX
2.1.5.1 * * * 2.3.2 * * *
(2) For a monitor that has passed the off- component in a NOX-diluent monitoring
(d) For single-load (or single-level) RATAs, system (to measure NOX emission rate in lb/
line calibration demonstration, a if a daily calibration error test is failed during mmBtu). If the RATA of the NOX
combination of on-line and off-line a RATA test period, prior to completing the concentration monitoring system is failed,
calibration error tests may be used to validate test, the RATA must be repeated. Data from then both the NOX concentration monitoring
data from the monitor, as follows. For a the monitor are invalidated prospectively system and the associated NOX-diluent
particular unit (or stack) operating hour, data from the hour of the failed calibration error monitoring system are considered out-of-
from a monitor may be validated using a test until the hour of completion of a control, beginning with the hour of
successful off-line calibration error test if: (a) subsequent successful calibration error test. completion of the failed NOX concentration
An on-line calibration error test has been The subsequent RATA shall not be RATA, and continuing until the hour of
passed within the previous 26 unit (or stack) commenced until the monitor has completion of subsequent hands-off RATAs
operating hours; and (b) the 26 clock hour successfully passed a calibration error test in which demonstrate that both systems have
data validation window for the off-line accordance with section 2.1.3 of this met the applicable relative accuracy
calibration error test has not expired. If either appendix. Notwithstanding these specifications in sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.7 of
of these conditions is not met, then the data requirements, when ASTM D6784–02 appendix A to this part, unless the option in
from the monitor are invalid with respect to (incorporated by reference under § 75.6 of paragraph (b)(3) of this section to use the data
the daily calibration error test requirement. this part) or Method 29 in appendix A–8 to validation procedures and associated
Data from the monitor shall remain invalid part 60 of this chapter is used as the timelines in § 75.20(b)(3)(ii) through (b)(3)(ix)
until the appropriate on-line or off-line reference method for the RATA of a Hg has been selected, in which case the
calibration error test is successfully CEMS, if a calibration error test of the CEMS beginning and end of the out-of-control
completed so that both conditions (a) and (b) is failed during a RATA test period, any test period shall be determined in accordance
are met. run(s) completed prior to the failed with § 75.20(b)(3)(vii)(A) and (B).
(3) For units with two measurement ranges calibration error test need not be repeated;
(low and high) for a particular parameter, * * * * *
however, the RATA may not continue until 2.3.3 RATA Grace Period
when separate analyzers are used for the low a subsequent calibration error test of the Hg
and high ranges, a failed or expired (a) * * *
CEMS has been passed. For multiple-load (or (2) A required 3-load flow RATA has not
calibration on one of the ranges does not multiple-level) flow RATAs, each load level been performed by the end of the calendar
affect the quality-assured data status on the (or operating level) is treated as a separate quarter in which it is due; or
other range. For a dual-range analyzer (i.e., a RATA (i.e., when a calibration error test is
single analyzer with two measurement * * * * *
failed prior to completing the RATA at a (c) If, at the end of the 720 unit (or stack)
scales), a failed calibration error test on either particular load level (or operating level), only
the low or high scale results in an out-of- operating hour grace period, the RATA has
the RATA at that load level (or operating not been completed, data from the
control period for the monitor. Data from the level) must be repeated; the results of any
monitor remain invalid until corrective monitoring system shall be invalid,
previously-passed RATA(s) at the other load beginning with the first unit operating hour
actions are taken and ‘‘hands-off’’ calibration level(s) (or operating level(s)) are unaffected,
error tests have been passed on both ranges. following the expiration of the grace period.
unless re-linearization of the monitor is Data from the CEMS remain invalid until the
However, if the most recent calibration error required to correct the problem that caused
test on the high scale was passed but has hour of completion of a subsequent hands-off
the calibration failure, in which case a RATA. The deadline for the next test shall be
expired, while the low scale is up-to-date on subsequent 3-load (or 3-level) RATA is
its calibration error test requirements (or either two QA operating quarters (if a
required), except as otherwise provided in semiannual RATA frequency is obtained) or
vice-versa), the expired calibration error test section 2.3.1.3(c)(5) of this appendix.
does not affect the quality-assured status of four QA operating quarters (if an annual
* * * * * RATA frequency is obtained) after the quarter
the data recorded on the other scale.
(g) Data validation for failed RATAs for a in which the RATA is completed, not to
* * * * * CO2 pollutant concentration monitor (or an exceed eight calendar quarters.
2.2.3 * * *
O2 monitor used to measure CO2 emissions), * * * * *
(e) * * * For a dual-range analyzer,
a NOX pollutant concentration monitor, and (d) When a RATA is done during a grace
‘‘hands-off’’ linearity checks must be passed
a NOX-diluent monitoring system shall be period in order to satisfy a RATA
on both measurement scales to end the out- requirement from a previous quarter, the
done according to paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2)
of-control period. * * * deadline for the next RATA shall determined
of this section:
* * * * * (1) For a CO2 pollutant concentration as follows:
2.2.5 * * * monitor (or an O2 monitor used to measure (1) If the grace period RATA qualifies for
(a) * * * CO2 emissions) which also serves as the a reduced, (i.e., annual), RATA frequency the
Rh = Hourly value of the flow-to-load ratio, diluent component in a NOX-diluent deadline for the next RATA shall be set at
scfh/megawatts, scfh/1000 lb/hr of monitoring system, if the CO2 (or O2) RATA three QA operating quarters after the quarter
steam, or scfh/(mmBtu/hr thermal is failed, then both the CO2 (or O2) monitor in which the grace period test is completed.
output). and the associated NOX-diluent system are (2) If the grace period RATA qualifies for
considered out-of-control, beginning with the the standard, (i.e., semiannual), RATA
* * * * * frequency the deadline for the next RATA
Lh = Hourly unit load, megawatts, 1000 lb/ hour of completion of the failed CO2 (or O2)
monitor RATA, and continuing until the shall be set at two QA operating quarters after
hr of steam, or mmBtu/hr thermal the quarter in which the grace period test is
output; must be within + 10.0 percent of hour of completion of subsequent hands-off
RATAs which demonstrate that both systems completed.
Lavg during the most recent normal-load (3) Notwithstanding these requirements, no
have met the applicable relative accuracy
flow RATA. more than eight successive calendar quarters

specifications in sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 of
* * * * * appendix A to this part, unless the option in shall elapse after the quarter in which the
(2) * * * paragraph (b)(3) of this section to use the data grace period test is completed, without a
(GHR)h = Hourly value of the gross heat rate, validation procedures and associated subsequent RATA having been conducted.
Btu/kwh, Btu/lb steam load, or 1000 timelines in § 75.20(b)(3)(ii) through (b)(3)(ix) * * * * *
2.6 System Integrity Checks for Hg of appendix A to this part. The performance shall also be considered out of control,
Monitors specifications in paragraph (3) of section 3.2 beginning with the 169th unit or stack
For each Hg concentration monitoring of appendix A to this part must be met, operating hour after the last successful check,
system (except for a Hg monitor that does not otherwise the monitoring system is and continuing until a subsequent system
have a converter), perform a single-point considered out-of-control, from the hour of integrity check is passed. This weekly check
system integrity check weekly, i.e., at least the failed check until a subsequent system is not required if the daily calibration
once every 168 unit or stack operating hours, integrity check is passed. If a required system assessments in section 2.1.1 of this appendix
using a NIST-traceable source of oxidized Hg. integrity check is not performed and passed are performed using a NIST-traceable source
Perform this check using a mid- or high-level within 168 unit or stack operating hours of of oxidized Hg.
gas concentration, as defined in section 5.2 last successful check, the monitoring system * * * * *
FIGURE 1 TO APPENDIX B OF PART 75.—QUALITY ASSURANCE TEST REQUIREMENTS

Basic QA test frequency requirements *
Test Semi-
Daily * Weekly Quarterly * Annual
annual *
Calibration Error Test (2 pt.) ................................................................ ✔ .................... .................... .................... ....................

Interference Check (flow) ..................................................................... ✔ .................... .................... .................... ....................
Flow-to-Load Ratio ............................................................................... .................... .................... ✔ .................... ....................
Leak Check (DP flow monitors) ........................................................... .................... .................... ✔ .................... ....................
Linearity Check or System Integrity Check ** (3 pt.) ............................ .................... .................... ✔ .................... ....................
Single-point System Integrity Check ** ................................................. .................... ✔ .................... .................... ....................
RATA (SO2, NOX, CO2, O2, H2O) 1 ...................................................... .................... .................... .................... ✔ ....................
RATA (All Hg monitoring systems) ...................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ✔
RATA (flow) 1 2 ...................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... ✔ ....................
* ‘‘Daily’’ means operating days, only. ‘‘Weekly’’ means once every 168 unit or stack operating hours. ‘‘Quarterly’’ means once every QA oper-
ating quarter. ‘‘Semiannual’’ means once every two QA operating quarters. ‘‘Annual’’ means once every four QA operating quarters.
** The system integrity check applies only to Hg monitors with converters. The single-point weekly system integrity check is not required if daily
calibrations are performed using a NIST-traceable source of oxidized Hg. The 3-point quarterly system integrity check is not required if a linearity
check is performed.
1 Conduct RATA annually (i.e., once every four QA operating quarters), if monitor meets accuracy requirements to qualify for less frequent test-
ing.
2 For flow monitors installed on peaking units, bypass stacks, or units that qualify for single-level RATA testing under section 6.5.2(e) of this
part, conduct all RATAs at a single, normal load (or operating level). For other flow monitors, conduct annual RATAs at two load levels (or oper-
ating 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 calendar years and whenever
a flow monitor is re-linearized, 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

Semiannual W
RATA Annual W
(percent)
SO2 or NOXY ....................... 7.5% <RA ≤10.0% or ±15.0 ppm X ................................. RA ≤ 7.5% or ±12.0 ppm X.
SO2-diluent ........................... 7.5% <RA ≤10.0% or ±0.030 lb/mmBtu X ....................... RA ≤7.5% or ±0.025 lb/mmBtu =G5X.
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/O2X.
Hg X ...................................... N/A .................................................................................. RA < 20.0% or ± 1.0 µg/scm 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 by-
pass 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, 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 per-
formed.
X The difference between monitor and reference method mean values applies to moisture monitors, CO , and O monitors, low emitters of
2 2
SO2, NOX, or Hg, or and low flow, only. The specifications for Hg monitors also apply to sorbent trap monitoring systems.
Y A NO concentration monitoring system used to determine NO mass emissions under § 75.71.
X X
■ 42. Appendix D to Part 75 is amended ■ d. Revising the terms ‘‘(GHR) base’’ and 95 (Reapproved 2000)’’, in the first
by: ‘‘Lavg’’ in paragraph (c) of section sentence of section 2.2.3;
■ a. Revising section 2.1.5.1; 2.1.7.1; ■ h. Removing ‘‘D4057–88 ‘Standard
■ b. Removing all ‘‘±’’ symbols from ■ e. Revising the terms ‘‘Rh’’ and ‘‘Lh’’ in Practice for Manual Sampling of
paragraph (c) of section 2.1.6.1; paragraph (a) of section 2.1.7.2; Petroleum and Petroleum Products’
■ f. Revising the terms ‘‘(GHR) h’’ and (incorporated by reference under

■ c. Revising the Rbase and Lavg variable
‘‘Lh’’ in paragraph (c) of section 2.1.7.2; § 75.6)’’ and adding in its place, ‘‘ASTM
definitions in paragraph (a) of section D4057–95 (Reapproved 2000), Standard
2.1.7.1; ■ g. Removing ‘‘D4177–82 (Reapproved
Practice for Manual Sampling of
1990)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘D4177– Petroleum and Petroleum Products
(incorporated by reference under § 75.6 incorporated by reference under § 75.6 of this after the end of the calendar year allowance
of this part)’’, in sections 2.2.4.1 and part). The Administrator may also approve accounting period. This requirement does not
2.2.4.2, and in paragraph (c) of section other procedures that use equipment apply to oil samples taken from the fuel
traceable to National Institute of Standards supplier’s storage container, as described in
2.2.4.3;
and Technology standards. Document such section 2.2.4.3 of this appendix. Analyze oil
■ i. Revising sections 2.2.5, 2.2.6, and
procedures, the equipment used, and the samples for percent sulfur content by weight
2.2.7; accuracy of the procedures in the monitoring in accordance with ASTM D129–00,
■ j. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (e) of plan for the unit, and submit a petition Standard Test Method for Sulfur in
section 2.3.1.4; signed by the designated representative Petroleum Products (General Bomb Method),
■ k. Revising section 2.3.3.1.2; under § 75.66(c). If the flowmeter accuracy ASTM D1552–01, Standard Test Method for
■ l. Revising section 2.3.4; exceeds 2.0 percent of the upper range value, Sulfur in Petroleum Products (High-
■ m. Adding two sentences at the end of the flowmeter does not qualify for use under Temperature Method), ASTM D2622–98,
section 2.3.4.1; this part. Standard Test Method for Sulfur in
■ n. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (c) of Petroleum Products by Wavelength
* * * * *
section 2.3.7; Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry,
2.1.7.1
■ o. Revising section 3.2.2; and ASTM D4294–98, Standard Test Method for
(a) * * *
Sulfur in Petroleum and Petroleum Products
■ p. Revising section 3.5.1. Where: by Energy-Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence
The revisions and additions read as Rbase = Value of the fuel flow rate-to-load Spectrometry, or ASTM D5453–06, Standard
follows: ratio during the baseline period; 100 Test Method for Determination of Total
Appendix D to Part 75—Optional SO2 scfh/MWe, 100 scfh/klb per hour steam Sulfur in Light Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition
Emissions Data Protocol for Gas-Fired load, or 100 scfh/mmBtu per hour Engine Fuel, Diesel Engine Fuel, and Engine
thermal output for gas-firing; (lb/hr)/ Oil by Ultraviolet Fluorescence (all
and Oil-Fired Units. MWe, (lb/hr)/klb per hour steam load, or incorporated by reference under § 75.6 of this
* * * * * (lb/hr)/mmBtu per hour thermal output part). Alternatively, the oil samples may be
for oil-firing. analyzed for percent sulfur by any consensus
2. Procedure standard method prescribed for the affected
* * * * *
* * * * * Lavg = Arithmetic average unit load during unit under part 60 of this chapter.
2.1.5.1 Use the procedures in the the baseline period, megawatts, 1000 lb/ 2.2.6 Where the flowmeter records
following standards to verify flowmeter hr of steam, or mmBtu/hr thermal volumetric flow rate rather than mass flow
accuracy or design, as appropriate to the type output. rate, analyze oil samples to determine the
of flowmeter: ASME MFC–3M–2004, density or specific gravity of the oil.
Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using * * * * * Determine the density or specific gravity of
Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi; ASME MFC– (c) * * * the oil sample in accordance with ASTM
4M–1986 (Reaffirmed 1997), Measurement of Where: D287–92 (Reapproved 2000), Standard Test
Gas Flow by Turbine Meters; American Gas (GHR)base = Baseline value of the gross heat Method for API Gravity of Crude Petroleum
Association Report No. 3, Orifice Metering of rate during the baseline period, Btu/kwh, and Petroleum Products (Hydrometer
Natural Gas and Other Related Hydrocarbon Btu/lb steam load, or 1000mmBtu heat Method), ASTM D1217–93 (Reapproved
Fluids Part 1: General Equations and input/mmBtu thermal output. 1998), Standard Test Method for Density and
Uncertainty Guidelines (October 1990 Relative Density (Specific Gravity) of Liquids
* * * * *
Edition), Part 2: Specification and by Bingham Pycnometer, ASTM D1481–93
Lavg = Average (mean) unit load during the
Installation Requirements (February 1991 (Reapproved 1997), Standard Test Method for
baseline period, megawatts, 1000 lb/hr of
Edition), and Part 3: Natural Gas Density and Relative Density (Specific
steam, or mmBtu/hr thermal output.
Applications (August 1992 edition) Gravity) of Viscous Materials by Lipkin
(excluding the modified flow-calculation * * * * * Bicapillary Pycnometer, ASTM D1480–93
method in part 3); Section 8, Calibration from 2.1.7.2 (Reapproved 1997), Standard Test Method for
American Gas Association Transmission (a) * * * Density and Relative Density (Specific
Measurement Committee Report No. 7: Where: Gravity) of Viscous Materials by Bingham
Measurement of Gas by Turbine Meters Rh = Hourly value of the fuel flow rate-to- Pycnometer, ASTM D1298–99, Standard Test
(Second Revision, April 1996); ASME–MFC– load ratio; 100 scfh/MWe, (lb/hr)/MWe, Method for Density, Relative Density
5M–1985, (Reaffirmed 1994), Measurement of 100 scfh/1000 lb/hr of steam load, (lb/ (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude
Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits Using hr)/1000 lb/hr of steam load, 100 scfh/ Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum Products by
Transit-Time Ultrasonic Flowmeters; ASME (mmBtu/hr of steam load), or (lb/hr)/ Hydrometer Method, or ASTM D4052–96
MFC–6M–1998, Measurement of Fluid Flow (mmBtu/hr thermal output). (Reapproved 2002), Standard Test Method for
in Pipes Using Vortex Flowmeters; ASME Density and Relative Density of Liquids by
MFC–7M–1987 (Reaffirmed 1992), * * * * * Digital Density Meter (all incorporated by
Measurement of Gas Flow by Means of Lh = Hourly unit load, megawatts, 1000 lb/ reference under § 75.6 of this part).
Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles; ISO 8316: hr of steam, or mmBtu/hr thermal Alternatively, the oil samples may be
1987(E) Measurement of Liquid Flow in output. analyzed for density or specific gravity by
Closed Conduits-Method by Collection of the * * * * * any consensus standard method prescribed
Liquid in a Volumetric Tank; American (c) * * * for the affected unit under part 60 of this
Petroleum Institute (API) Manual of Where: chapter.
Petroleum Measurement Standards, Chapter (GHR)h = Hourly value of the gross heat rate, 2.2.7 Analyze oil samples to determine
4—Proving Systems, Section 2—Pipe Provers Btu/kwh, Btu/lb steam load, or mmBtu the heat content of the fuel. Determine oil
(Provers Accumulating at Least 10,000 heat input/mmBtu thermal output. heat content in accordance with ASTM
Pulses), Second Edition, March 2001, and D240–00, Standard Test Method for Heat of
Section 5—Master-Meter Provers, Second * * * * * Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by
Edition, May 2000; American Petroleum Lh = Hourly unit load, megawatts, 1000 lb/ Bomb Calorimeter, ASTM D4809–00,
Institute (API) Manual of Petroleum hr of steam, or mmBtu/hr thermal Standard Test Method for Heat of
Measurement Standards, Chapter 22— output. Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by
Testing Protocol, Section 2—Differential * * * * * Bomb Calorimeter (Precision Method), or
Pressure Flow Measurement Devices, First 2.2.5 For each oil sample that is taken on- ASTM D5865–01a, Standard Test Method for
Edition, August 2005; or ASME MFC–9M– site at the affected facility, split and label the Gross Calorific Value of Coal and Coke (all
1988 (Reaffirmed 2001), Measurement of sample and maintain a portion (at least 200 incorporated by reference under § 75.6 of this
Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits by Weighing cc) of it throughout the calendar year and in part) or any other procedures listed in section
Method, for all other flowmeter types (all all cases for not less than 90 calendar days 5.5 of appendix F of this part. Alternatively,
the oil samples may be analyzed for heat percent methane requirement is also met. (2) For natural gas, if only one sample is
content by any consensus standard method The effective date of the annual total sulfur taken, apply the results beginning at the date
prescribed for the affected unit under part 60 sampling requirement is January 1, 2003. on which the sample was taken. If multiple
of this chapter. * * * * * samples are taken and averaged, apply the
* * * * * 2.3.3.1.2 Use one of the following results beginning at the date on which the
2.3.1.4 * * * methods when using manual sampling (as last sample used in the annual assessment
(a) * * * applicable to the type of gas combusted) to was taken;
(2) Historical fuel sampling data for the determine the sulfur content of the fuel: * * * * *
previous 12 months, documenting the total ASTM D1072–06, Standard Test Method for (c) For monthly samples of the fuel GCV:
sulfur content of the fuel and the GCV and/ Total Sulfur in Fuel Gases by Combustion (1) If the actual monthly value is to be used
or percentage by volume of methane. The and Barium Chloride Titration, ASTM in the calculations and only one sample is
results of all sample analyses obtained by or D4468–85 (Reapproved 2006), Standard Test taken, apply the results starting from the date
provided to the owner or operator in the Method for Total Sulfur in Gaseous Fuels by on which the sample was taken. If multiple
previous 12 months shall be used in the Hydrogenolysis and Rateometric Colorimetry, samples are taken and averaged, apply the
demonstration, and each sample result must ASTM D5504–01, Standard Test Method for monthly average GCV value to the entire
meet the definition of pipeline natural gas in Determination of Sulfur Compounds in month; or
§ 72.2 of this chapter, except where the Natural Gas and Gaseous Fuels by Gas (2) If an assumed value (contract maximum
results of at least 100 daily (or more frequent) Chromatography and Chemiluminescence, or highest value from previous year’s
total sulfur samples are provided by the fuel ASTM D6667–04, Standard Test Method for samples) is to be used in the calculations,
supplier. In that case you may opt to convert Determination of Total Volatile Sulfur in apply the assumed value to all hours in each
these data to monthly averages and then if, Gaseous Hydrocarbons and Liquefied month of the quarter unless a higher value is
for each month, the average total sulfur
Petroleum Gases by Ultraviolet Fluorescence, obtained in a monthly GCV sample (or, if
content is 0.5 grains/100 scf or less, and if
or ASTM D3246–96, Standard Test Method multiple samples are taken and averaged, if
the GCV or percent methane requirement is
for Sulfur in Petroleum Gas by Oxidative the monthly average exceeds the assumed
also met, the fuel qualifies as pipeline natural
Microcoulometry, (all incorporated by value). In that case, if only one monthly
gas. Alternatively, the fuel qualifies as
reference under § 75.6 of this part). sample is taken, use the sampled value,
pipeline natural gas if ≥ 98 percent of the 100
Alternatively, the gas samples may be starting from the date on which the sample
(or more) samples have a total sulfur content
analyzed for percent sulfur by any consensus was taken. If multiple samples are taken and
of 0.5 grains/100 scf or less and if the GCV
standard method prescribed for the affected averaged, use the average value for the entire
or percent methane requirement is also met;
unit under part 60 of this chapter. month in which the assumed value was
or
* * * * * exceeded. Consider the sample (or, if
* * * * * applicable, monthly average) results to be the
(e) If a fuel qualifies as pipeline natural gas 2.3.4 Gross Calorific Values for Gaseous
Fuels new assumed value. Continue using the new
based on the specifications in a fuel contract assumed value unless and until one of the
or tariff sheet, no additional, on-going Determine the GCV of each gaseous fuel at
the frequency specified in this section, using following occurs (as applicable to the
sampling of the fuel’s total sulfur content is reporting option selected): The assumed
required, provided that the contract or tariff one of the following methods: ASTM D1826–
94 (Reapproved 1998), ASTM D3588–98, value is superseded by a higher value from
sheet is current, valid and representative of a subsequent monthly sample (or by a higher
the fuel combusted in the unit. If the fuel ASTM D4891–89 (Reapproved 2006), GPA
Standard 2172–96, Calculation of Gross monthly average); or the assumed value is
qualifies as pipeline natural gas based on fuel superseded by a new contract in which case
sampling and analysis, on-going sampling of Heating Value, Relative Density and
Compressibility Factor for Natural Gas the new contract value becomes the assumed
the fuel’s sulfur content is required annually value at the time the fuel specified under the
and whenever the fuel supply source Mixtures from Compositional Analysis, or
GPA Standard 2261–00, Analysis for Natural new contract begins to be combusted in the
changes. For the purposes of this paragraph unit; or both the calendar year in which the
(e), sampling ‘‘annually’’ means that at least Gas and Similar Gaseous Mixtures by Gas
Chromatography (all incorporated by new sampled value (or monthly average)
one sample is taken in each calendar year. If exceeded the assumed value and the
the results of at least 100 daily (or more reference under § 75.6 of this part). Use the
appropriate GCV value, as specified in subsequent calendar year have elapsed.
frequent) total sulfur samples have been
provided by the fuel supplier since the last section 2.3.4.1, 2.3.4.2, or 2.3.4.3 of this * * * * *
annual assessment of the fuel’s sulfur appendix, in the calculation of unit hourly 3.2.2 Convert density, specific gravity, or
content, the data may be used as follows to heat input rates. Alternatively, the gas API gravity of the oil sample to density of the
satisfy the annual sampling requirement for samples may be analyzed for heat content by oil sample at the sampling location’s
the current year. If this option is chosen, all any consensus standard method prescribed temperature using ASTM D1250–07,
of the data provided by the fuel supplier for the affected unit under part 60 of this Standard Guide for Use of the Petroleum
shall be used. First, convert the data to chapter. Measurement Tables (incorporated by
monthly averages. Then, if, for each month, 2.3.4.1 GCV of Pipeline Natural Gas reference under (§ 75.6 of this part).
the average total sulfur content is 0.5 grains/ * * * If multiple GCV samples are taken * * * * *
100 scf or less, and if the GCV or percent and analyzed in a particular month, the GCV 3.5.1 Hourly SO2 Mass Emissions from
methane requirement is also met, the fuel values from all samples shall be averaged the Combustion of all Fuels. Determine the
qualifies as pipeline natural gas. arithmetically to obtain the monthly GCV. total mass emissions for each hour from the
Alternatively, the fuel qualifies as pipeline Then, apply the monthly average GCV value combustion of all fuels using Equation D–12
natural gas if the analysis of the 100 (or more) as described in paragraph (c) in section 2.3.7 (On and after January 1, 2009, determine the
total sulfur samples since the last annual of this appendix. total mass emission rate (in lbs/hr) for each
assessment shows that ≥ 98 percent of the * * * * * hour from the combustion of all fuels by
samples have a total sulfur content of 0.5 2.3.7 * * * dividing Equation D–12 by the actual unit
grains/100 scf or less and if the GCV or (b) * * * operating time for the hour):
MSo 2 − hr = ∑
all − fuels
SO2rate −1 t i (Eq. D-12)
Where: SO2 rate¥I = SO2 mass emission rate for each ti = Time each gas or oil fuel was combusted
MSO2-hr = Total mass of SO2 emissions from type of gas or oil fuel combusted during for the hour (fuel usage time), fraction of
ER24JA08.019</MATH>
all fuels combusted during the hour, lb. the hour, lb/hr. an hour (in equal increments that can
range from one hundredth to one quarter condition and obtain an arithmetic average of ■ p. Removing the second and third
of an hour, at the option of the owner or the runs for each load condition. During each sentences from the %O2w variable
operator). test run on a boiler, record the boiler excess definition, and by adding a new
* * * * * oxygen level at 5 minute intervals.
sentence at the end of the paragraph, in
■ 43. Appendix E to part 75 is amended * * * * * section 5.2.3;
by: 2.5.2 Substitute missing NOX emission ■ q. Removing the second and third
■ a. Adding a new sentence to the end rate data using the highest NOX emission rate sentences from the %O2d variable
tabulated during the most recent set of
of section 2.1; definition, in section 5.2.4;
baseline correlation tests for the same fuel or,
■ b. Revising the seventh sentence of ■ r. Revising the definition of ‘‘GCVo’’ in
if applicable, combination of fuels, except as
section 2.1.2.1; provided in sections 2.5.2.1, 2.5.2.2, 2.5.2.3, paragraph (a) of section 5.5.1;
■ c. Revising sections 2.1.2.2 and ■ s. Revising the definition of ‘‘GCVg’’ in
and 2.5.2.4 of this appendix.
2.1.2.3; section 5.5.2;
■ d. Removing the phrase ‘‘(MWge or
* * * * *
2.5.2.4 Whenever 20 full calendar ■ t. Revising section 5.5.3.1;
steam load in 1000 lb/hr)’’ and adding quarters have elapsed following the quarter ■ u. Revising section 5.5.3.2;
in its place the phrase ‘‘(MWge or steam of the last baseline correlation test for a ■ v. Removing the phrase ‘‘as measured
load in 1000 lb/hr, or mmBtu/hr thermal particular type of fuel (or fuel mixture), by ASTM D3176–89, D1989–92, D3286–
output)’’, in section 2.4.1; without a subsequent baseline correlation 91a, or D2015–91, Btu/lb’’ and adding in
■ e. Revising section 2.5.2; and test being done for that type of fuel (or fuel its place the phrase ‘‘as measured by
■ f. Adding section 2.5.2.4. mixture), substitute the fuel-specific NOX ASTM D3176–89 (Reapproved 2002), or
The revisions and additions read as MER (as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter) for ASTM D5865–01a, Btu/lb. (incorporated
follows: each hour in which that fuel (or mixture) is
combusted until a new baseline correlation
by reference under § 75.6 of this part).’’
Appendix E to Part 75—Optional NOX test for that fuel (or mixture) has been in the definition of the GCVc variable in
Emissions Estimation Protocol for Gas- successfully completed. For fuel mixtures, Equation F–21;
Fired Peaking Units and Oil-Fired report the highest of the individual MER ■ w. Removing the word ‘‘lb/hr’’ and
Peaking Units values for the components of the mixture. adding in its place the phrase ‘‘lb/hr, or
* * * * * * * * * * mmBtu/hr’’ in the definition of the SF
2.1 Initial Performance Testing ■ 44. Appendix F to Part 75 is amended variable in Equation F–21b;
* * * The requirements in section 6.1.2 of ■ x. Revising the heading and text of
by:
appendix A to this part shall be met by any ■ a. Removing the second and third
section 7;
Air Emissions Testing Body (AETB) ■ y. Adding the words ‘‘of this
sentences from the introductory text of
performing O2 and NOX concentration appendix’’ after the words ‘‘section 8.1,
measurements under this appendix, either for section 2;
■ b. Removing the phrase ‘‘method 19 in
8.2, or 8.3’’ and after the words ‘‘section
units using the excepted methodology in this 8.4’’ in the introductory text for section
appendix or for units using the low mass appendix A of part 60 of this chapter’’
and adding in its place the phrase 8;
emissions excepted methodology in § 75.19.
■ z. Revising sections 8.1 and 8.1.1;
* * * * * ‘‘Method 19 in appendix A–7 to part 60
■ aa. Revising section 8.2;
2.1.2.1 * * * Use a minimum of 12 of this chapter’’, in the last sentence of
■ bb. Adding sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2;
sample points, located according to Method section 3.1 and in the last sentence of
■ cc. Revising section 8.3;
1 in appendix A–1 to part 60 of this chapter. section 3.2;
■ dd. Revising section 8.4; and
* * * * * ■ c. Adding the phrase ‘‘, or (if
■ ee. Adding section 10.
2.1.2.2 For stationary gas turbines, applicable) in the equations in Method
The revisions and additions read as
sample at a minimum of 12 points per run 19 in appendix A–7 to part 60 of this
at each load level. Locate the sample points follows:
chapter’’ after the words ‘‘of this
according to Method 1 in appendix A–1 to appendix’’, in section 3.3; Appendix F to Part 75—Conversion
part 60 of this chapter. For each fuel or ■ d. Removing the second and third Procedures.
consistent combination of fuels (and,
sentences from section 3.3.4;
optionally, for each combination of fuels), * * * * *
■ e. Adding sections 3.3.4.1 and 3.3.4.2;
measure the NOX and O2 concentrations at 3.3.4 * * *
each sampling point using methods 7E and ■ f. Revising Table 1; 3.3.4.1 For boilers, a minimum
3A in appendices A–4 and A–2 to part 60 of ■ g. Revising the text preceding concentration of 5.0 percent CO2 or a
this chapter. For diesel or dual fuel Equation F–7a, in section 3.3.6; maximum concentration of 14.0 percent O2
reciprocating engines, select the sampling ■ h. Revising section 3.3.6.1; may be substituted for the measured diluent
site to be as close as practicable to the ■ i. Revising section 3.3.6.2; gas concentration value for any operating
exhaust of the engine. ■ j. Revising sections 3.3.6.3 and 3.3.6.4; hour in which the hourly average CO2
2.1.2.3 Allow the unit to stabilize for a ■ k. Adding section 3.3.6.5; concentration is < 5.0 percent CO2 or the
minimum of 15 minutes (or longer if needed hourly average O2 concentration is > 14.0
■ l. Adding the words ‘‘either measured
for the NOX and O2 readings to stabilize) percent O2. For stationary gas turbines, a
prior to commencing NOX, O2, and heat input directly with a CO2 monitor or minimum concentration of 1.0 percent CO2
measurements. Determine the measurement calculated from wet-basis O2 data using or a maximum concentration of 19.0 percent
system response time according to sections Equation F–14b,’’ after the words ‘‘wet O2 may be substituted for measured diluent
8.2.5 and 8.2.6 of method 7E in appendix A– basis,’’ in the first sentence of the Ch gas concentration values for any operating
4 to part 60 of this chapter. When inserting variable definition, and by removing the hour in which the hourly average CO2
the probe into the flue gas for the first second and third sentences from the Ch concentration is < 1.0 percent CO2 or the
sampling point in each traverse, sample for variable definition, in section 4.1; hourly average O2 concentration is > 19.0
at least one minute plus twice the ■ m. Revising section 4.4.1; percent O2.
measurement system response time (or 3.3.4.2 If NOX emission rate is calculated
■ n. Removing the second and third
longer, if necessary to obtain a stable using either Equation 19–3 or 19–5 in
reading). For all other sampling points in sentences from the %CO2w variable Method 19 in appendix A–7 to part 60 of this
each traverse, sample for at least one minute definition in 5.2.1; chapter, a variant of the equation shall be
plus the measurement system response time ■ o. Removing the second and third used whenever the diluent cap is applied.
(or longer, if necessary to obtain a stable sentences from the %CO2d variable The modified equations shall be designated
reading). Perform three test runs at each load definition in 5.2.2; as Equations 19–3D and 19–5D, respectively.
Equation 19–3D is structurally the same as is the diluent cap value. The numerator of 5D is simply ‘‘20.9¥%O2dc’’, where %O2dc is
Equation 19–3, except that the term ‘‘%O2w’’ Equation 19–5D is the same as Equation 19– the diluent cap value.
in the denominator is replaced with the term 5; however, the denominator of Equation 19–
‘‘%O2dc × [(100¥% H2O)/100]’’, where %O2dc * * * * *
TABLE 1.—F- AND Fc-FACTORS 1

F-factor FC-factor
Fuel (dscf/mmBtu) (scf CO2/mmBtu)
Coal (as defined by ASTM D388–99 2):

Anthracite .............................................................................................................................................. 10,100 1,970
Bituminous ............................................................................................................................................ 9,780 1,800
Subbituminous ...................................................................................................................................... 9,820 1,840
Lignite ................................................................................................................................................... 9,860 1,910
Petroleum Coke ........................................................................................................................................... 9,830 1,850
Tire Derived Fuel ......................................................................................................................................... 10,260 1,800
Oil ................................................................................................................................................................. 9,190 1,420
Gas:
Natural gas ........................................................................................................................................... 8,710 1,040
Propane ................................................................................................................................................ 8,710 1,190
Butane .................................................................................................................................................. 8,710 1,250
Wood:
Bark ...................................................................................................................................................... 9,600 1,920
Wood residue ....................................................................................................................................... 9,240 1,830
1 Determined at standard conditions: 20 °C (68 °F) and 29.92 inches of mercury.
2 Incorporated by reference under § 75.6 of this part.
* * * * * analysis of the fuel combusted using ASTM Fuels, ASTM D4891–89 (Reapproved 2006),
3.3.6 Equations F–7a and F–7b may be D3176–89 (Reapproved 2002), Standard Standard Test Method for Heating Value of
used in lieu of the F or Fc factors specified Practice for Ultimate Analysis of Coal and Gases in Natural Gas Range by Stoichiometric
in Section 3.3.5 of this appendix to calculate Coke, (solid fuels), ASTM D5291–02, Combustion, GPA Standard 2172–96
a site-specific dry-basis F factor (dscf/ Standard Test Methods for Instrumental Calculation of Gross Heating Value, Relative
mmBtu) or a site-specific Fc factor (scf CO2/ Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Density and Compressibility Factor for
mmBtu), on either a dry or wet basis. At a Nitrogen in Petroleum Products and Natural Gas Mixtures from Compositional
minimum, the site-specific F or Fc factor Lubricants, (liquid fuels) or computed from Analysis, GPA Standard 2261–00 Analysis
must be based on 9 samples of the fuel. Fuel results using ASTM D1945–96 (Reapproved for Natural Gas and Similar Gaseous
samples taken during each run of a RATA are 2001), Standard Test Method for Analysis of Mixtures by Gas Chromatography, or ASTM
acceptable for this purpose. The site-specific Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography, or D1826–94 (Reapproved 1998), Standard Test
F or Fc factor must be re-determined at least ASTM D1946–90 (Reapproved 2006),
Method for Calorific (Heating) Value of Gases
Standard Practice for Analysis of Reformed
annually, and the value from the most recent in Natural Gas Range by Continuous
Gas by Gas Chromatography, (gaseous fuels)
determination must be used in the emission Recording Calorimeter, for gaseous fuels, as
as applicable. (All of these methods are
calculations. Alternatively, the previous F or applicable. (All of these methods are
incorporated by reference under § 75.6 of this
Fc value may continue to be used if it is incorporated by reference under § 75.6 of this
part.)
higher than the value obtained in the most part).
3.3.6.2 GCV is the gross calorific value
recent determination. The owner or operator 3.3.6.3 For affected units that combust a
(Btu/lb) of the fuel combusted determined by
shall keep records of all site-specific F or Fc combination of a fuel (or fuels) listed in
ASTM D5865–01a, Standard Test Method for
determinations, active for at least 3 years. Gross Calorific Value of Coal and Coke, and Table 1 in section 3.3.5 of this appendix with
(Calculate all F- and Fc factors at standard ASTM D240–00, Standard Test Method for any fuel(s) not listed in Table 1, the F or Fc
conditions of 20 °C (68 °F) and 29.92 inches Heat of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon value is subject to the Administrator’s
of mercury). Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter, or ASTM approval under § 75.66.
* * * * * D4809–00, Standard Test Method for Heat of 3.3.6.4 For affected units that combust
3.3.6.1 H, C, S, N, and O are content by Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by combinations of fuels listed in Table 1 in
weight of hydrogen, carbon, sulfur, nitrogen, Bomb Calorimeter (Precision Method) for oil; section 3.3.5 of this appendix, prorate the F
and oxygen (expressed as percent), and ASTM D3588–98, Standard Practice for or Fc factors determined by section 3.3.5 or
respectively, as determined on the same basis Calculating Heat Value, Compressibility 3.3.6 of this appendix in accordance with the
as the gross calorific value (GCV) by ultimate Factor, and Relative Density of Gaseous applicable formula as follows:
Where, to calculate Xi in the hardcopy portion Fi or (Fc)i = Applicable F or Fc factor for each
Xi = Fraction of total heat input derived from of the monitoring plan for the unit. The fuel type determined in accordance with
each type of fuel (e.g., natural gas, Xi values may be determined and Section 3.3.5 or 3.3.6 of this appendix.
bituminous coal, wood). Each Xi value updated either hourly, daily, weekly, or n = Number of fuels being combusted in
shall be determined from the best monthly. In all cases, the prorated F- combination.
available information on the quantity of factor used in the emission calculations 3.3.6.5 As an alternative to prorating the
fuel combusted and the GCV value, over shall be determined using the Xi values F or Fc factor as described in section 3.3.6.4
a specified time period. The owner or from the most recent update. of this appendix, a ‘‘worst-case’’ F or Fc factor
ER24JA08.020</GPH>
operator shall explain the method used may be reported for any unit operating hour.
The worst-case F or Fc factor shall be the 4. Procedure for CO2 Mass Emissions factors from section 3.3.5 of this appendix
highest F or Fc value for any of the fuels * * * * * shall be used in one of the following
combusted in the unit. equations (as applicable) to determine hourly
4.4.1 If the owner or operator elects to use
average CO2 concentration of flue gases (in
* * * * * data from an O2 monitor to calculate CO2 percent by volume) from the measured
concentration, the appropriate F and FC hourly average O2 concentration:
Fc 20.9 − O 2 d
CO 2d
= 100 (Eq. F-14a)
F 20.9
Where: F, FC = F-factor or carbon-based Fc-factor O2d = Hourly average O2 concentration

CO2d = Hourly average CO2 concentration from section 3.3.5 of this appendix. during unit operation, percent by
during unit operation, percent by 20.9 = Percentage of O2 in ambient air. volume, dry basis.
volume, dry basis.
100 Fc   100 − % H 2 O  
CO 2 w =  20.9   − O2w  (Eq. F-14b)
20.9 F   100  
Where: Mixtures from Compositional Analysis, or operator has received approval from the
CO2w = Hourly average CO2 concentration GPA Standard 2261–00 Analysis for Natural Administrator under § 75.66 to use a site-
during unit operation, percent by Gas and Similar Gaseous Mixtures by Gas specific default SO2 emission rate for the fuel
volume, wet basis. Chromatography, Btu/100 scf (all or mixture of fuels.
O2w = Hourly average O2 concentration incorporated by reference under § 75.6 of this
E h = ( ER )( HI )
during unit operation, percent by part).
volume, wet basis. (Eq. F-23)
* * * * *
F, Fc = F-factor or carbon-based FC-factor 5.5.3.1 Perform coal sampling daily Where:
from section 3.3.5 of this appendix. according to section 5.3.2.2 in Method 19 in Eh = Hourly SO2 mass emission rate, lb/hr.
20.9 = Percentage of O2 in ambient air. appendix A to part 60 of this chapter and use ER = Applicable SO2 default emission rate for
%H2O = Moisture content of gas in the stack, ASTM D2234–00, Standard Practice for gaseous fuel combustion, from section
percent. 2.3.1.1, 2.3.2.1.1, or 2.3.6(b) of appendix
Collection of a Gross Sample of Coal,
For any hour where Equation F–14a or F– (incorporated by reference under § 75.6 of D to this part, or other default SO2
14b results in a negative hourly average CO2 this part) Type I, Conditions A, B, or C and emission rate for the combustion of very
value, 0.0% CO2w shall be recorded as the systematic spacing for sampling. (When low sulfur liquid or solid fuel,
average CO2 value for that hour. performing coal sampling solely for the combinations of such fuels, or mixtures
* * * * * purposes of the missing data procedures in of such fuels with gaseous fuel, as
§ 75.36, use of ASTM D2234–00 is optional, approved by the Administrator under
5. Procedures for Heat Input and coal samples may be taken weekly.) § 75.66, lb/mmBtu.
* * * * * 5.5.3.2 All ASTM methods are HI = Hourly heat input rate, determined
5.2.3 * * * For any operating hour where incorporated by reference under § 75.6 of this using the procedures in section 5.2 of
Equation F–17 results in an hourly heat input part. Use ASTM D2013–01, Standard Practice this appendix, mmBtu/hr.
rate that is ≤ 0.0 mmBtu/hr, 1.0 mmBtu/hr for Preparing Coal Samples for Analysis, for
shall be recorded and reported as the heat 8. Procedures for NOX Mass Emissions
preparation of a daily coal sample and
input rate for that hour. analyze each daily coal sample for gross * * * * *
* * * * * calorific value using ASTM D5865–01a, 8.1 The own or operator may use the
5.5.1 (a) * * * Standard Test Method for Gross Calorific hourly NOX emission rate and the hourly
GCVo = Gross calorific value of oil, as Value of Coal and Coke. On-line coal analysis heat input rate to calculate the NOX mass
measured by ASTM D240–00, ASTM D5865– may also be used if the on-line analytical emissions in pounds or the NOX mass
01a, or ASTM D4809–00 for each oil sample instrument has been demonstrated to be emission rate in pounds per hour, (as
under section 2.2 of appendix D to this part, equivalent to the applicable ASTM methods required by the applicable reporting format),
Btu/unit mass (all incorporated by reference under §§ 75.23 and 75.66. for each unit or stack operating hour, as
under (§ 75.6 of this part). follows:
* * * * * 8.1.1 If both NOX emission rate and heat
* * * * * 7. Procedures for SO2 Mass Emissions, Using input rate are monitored at the same unit or
5.5.2 * * * stack level (e.g., the NOX emission rate value
ER24JA08.024</MATH>
Default SO2 Emission Rates and Heat Input
GCVg = Gross calorific value of gaseous and the heat input rate value both represent
Measured by CEMS
fuel, as determined by sampling (for each all of the units exhausting to the common
delivery for gaseous fuel in lots, for each The owner or operator shall use Equation
stack), then (as required by the applicable
daily gas sample for gaseous fuel delivered F–23 to calculate hourly SO2 mass emissions
reporting format) either:
by pipeline, for each hourly average for gas in accordance with § 75.11(e)(1) during the
(a) Use Equation F–24 to calculate the
ER24JA08.022</GPH> ER24JA08.023</MATH>
measured hourly with a gas chromatograph, combustion of gaseous fuel, for a unit that
hourly NOX mass emissions (lb).
or for each monthly sample of pipeline uses a flow monitor and a diluent gas
natural gas, or as verified by the contractual monitor to measure heat input, and that
supplier at least once every month pipeline qualifies to use a default SO2 emission rate M ( NOx )h = ER ( NOx )h HI h t h (Eq. F-24)
natural gas is combusted, as specified in under section 2.3.1.1, 2.3.2.1.1, or 2.3.6(b) of
section 2.3 of appendix D to this part) using appendix D to this part. Equation F–23 may Where:
ASTM D1826–94 (Reapproved 1998), ASTM also be applied to the combustion of solid or M(NOX)h = NOX mass emissions in lbs for the
D3588–98, ASTM D4891–89 (Reapproved liquid fuel that meets the definition of very hour.
2006), GPA Standard 2172–96 Calculation of low sulfur fuel in § 72.2 of this chapter, ER(NOX)h = Hourly average NOX emission rate
Gross Heating Value, Relative Density and combinations of such fuels, or mixtures of for hour h, lb/mmBtu, from section 3 of
ER24JA08.021</GPH>
Compressibility Factor for Natural Gas such fuels with gaseous fuel, if the owner or this appendix, from Method 19 in
appendix A–7 to part 60 of this chapter, ER(NOX)h = Hourly average NOX emission rate 8.2.1 When the NOX concentration
or from section 3.3 of appendix E to this for hour h, lb/mmBtu, from section 3 of monitoring system measures on a wet basis,
part. (Include bias-adjusted NOX this appendix, from Method 19 in first calculate the hourly NOX mass emission
emission rate values, where the bias-test appendix A–7 to part 60 of this chapter, rate (in lb/hr) during unit (or stack)
procedures in appendix A to this part or from section 3.3 of appendix E to this operation, using Equation F–26a. (Include
shows a bias-adjustment factor is part. (Include bias-adjusted NOX bias-adjusted flow rate or NOX concentration
necessary.) emission rate values, where the bias-test values, where the bias-test procedures in
HIh = Hourly average heat input rate for hour
procedures in appendix A to this part appendix A to this part shows a bias-
h, mmBtu/hr. (Include bias-adjusted flow
rate values, where the bias-test shows a bias-adjustment factor is adjustment factor is necessary.)
procedures in appendix A to this part necessary.)
shows a bias-adjustment factor is HIh = Hourly average heat input rate for hour E ( NOx ) = K Chw Q h (Eq. F-26a)
necessary.) h, mmBtu/hr. (Include bias-adjusted flow h
th = Monitoring location operating time for rate values, where the bias-test Where:
hour h, in hours or fraction of an hour procedures in appendix A to this part E(NOX)h = NOX mass emissions rate in lb/hr.
(in equal increments that can range from shows a bias-adjustment factor is K = 1.194 x 10¥7 for NOX, (lb/scf)/ppm.
one hundredth to one quarter of an hour, necessary.) Chw = Hourly average NOX concentration
at the option of the owner or operator). * * * * * during unit operation, wet basis, ppm.
If the combined NOX emission rate and Qh = Hourly average volumetric flow rate
8.2 Alternatively, the owner or operator
heat input are monitored for all of the
may use the hourly NOX concentration (as during unit operation, wet basis, scfh.
units in a common stack, the monitoring
measured by a NOX concentration monitoring 8.2.2 When NOX mass emissions are
location operating time is equal to the
total time when any of those units was system) and the hourly stack gas volumetric determined using a dry basis NOX
exhausting through the common stack; or flow rate to calculate the NOX mass emission concentration monitoring system and a wet
(b) Use Equation F–24a to calculate the rate (lb/hr) for each unit or stack operating basis flow monitoring system, first calculate
hourly NOX mass emission rate (lb/hr). hour, in accordance with section 8.2.1 or hourly NOX mass emission rate (in lb/hr)
8.2.2 of this appendix (as applicable). If the during unit (or stack) operation, using
E ( NOx ) = ER ( NOx ) HI h (Eq. F-24a) hourly NOX mass emissions are to be Equation F–26b. (Include bias-adjusted flow
h h reported in lb, Equation F–26c in section 8.3 rate or NOX concentration values, where the
Where: of this appendix shall be used to convert the bias-test procedures in appendix A to this
E(NOX)h = NOX mass emissions rate in lbs/hr hourly NOX mass emission rates to hourly part shows a bias-adjustment factor is
for the hour. NOX mass emissions (lb). necessary.)
(100 − %H 2O )
E ( NOX ) h = K Chd Q h ( Eq. F-26b )
(100 )
Where: operating hour by multiplying the hourly th = Unit operating time or stack operating
E(NOX)h = NOX mass emissions rate, lb/hr. NOX mass emission rate (lb/hr) by the unit time (as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter)
K = 1.194 x 10¥7 for NOX, (lb/scf)/ppm. operating time for the hour, as follows: for hour ‘‘h’’, in hours or fraction of an
Chd = Hourly average NOX concentration hour (in equal increments that can range
during unit operation, dry basis, ppm.
Qh = Hourly average volumetric flow rate M ( NOX ) = E h t h ( Eq. F-26c ) from one hundredth to one quarter of an
during unit operation, wet basis, scfh.
h
hour, at the option of the owner or
%H2O = Hourly average stack moisture Where: operator).
content during unit operation, percent by M(NOX)h = NOX mass emissions for the hour, 8.4 Use the following procedures to
volume. lb. calculate quarterly, cumulative ozone season,
8.3 When hourly NOX mass emissions are Eh = Hourly NOX mass emission rate during and cumulative yearly NOX mass emissions,
ER24JA08.030</GPH>
reported in pounds and are determined using unit (or stack) operation from Equation in tons:
a NOX concentration monitoring system and F–26a in section 8.2.1 of this appendix (a) When hourly NOX mass emissions are
a flow monitoring system, calculate NOX or Equation F–26b in section 8.2.2 of this reported in lb., use Eq. F–27.
mass emissions (lb) for each unit or stack appendix (as applicable), lb/hr.
ER24JA08.029</GPH>
p
∑ M ( NO ) X h
M ( NOX ) = h =1
( Eq. F-27 )
time period
2000 ER24JA08.028</GPH>
Where: M(NOX)h = NOX mass emissions in lb for the (b) When hourly NOX mass emission rate
M(NOX)time period = NOX mass emissions in tons hour. is reported in lb/hr, use Eq. F–27a.
for the given time period (quarter, p = The number of hours in the given time
ER24JA08.026</GPH> ER24JA08.027</GPH>
cumulative ozone season, cumulative period (quarter, cumulative ozone

year-to-date). season, cumulative year-to-date).
∑ E(
t
NOX ) h h
M ( NOX ) = h =1
( Eq. F-27a )
time period
2000
ER24JA08.025</GPH>
Where: th = Monitoring location operating time for or heat input calculations described in this
M(NOX)time period = NOX mass emissions in tons hour h, in hours or fraction of an hour appendix, and if the hourly moisture content
for the given time period (quarter, (in equal increments that can range from is determined from wet- and dry-basis O2
cumulative ozone season, cumulative one hundredth to one quarter of an hour, readings, use Equation F–31 to calculate the
year-to-date). at the option of the owner or operator). percent moisture, unless a ‘‘K’’ factor or other
E(NOX)h = NOX mass emission rate in lb/hr for * * * * * mathematical algorithm is developed as
the hour. 10. Moisture Determination From Wet and described in section 6.5.7(a) of appendix A
p = The number of hours in the given time Dry O2 Readings to this part:
period (quarter, cumulative ozone If a correction for the stack gas moisture
season, cumulative year-to-date). content is required in any of the emissions
( O2d − O2 w ) ×100
%H 2O = ( Eq. F-31)
O2d
Where: Nitrogen in Laboratory Samples of Coal ■ a. Removing the words ‘‘(see

% H2O = Hourly average stack gas moisture and Coke’’ in section 2.2.2. §§ 75.11(b) and 75.12(b))’’ and adding in
content, percent H2O The revisions read as follows: its place the words ‘‘(see § 75.11(b))’’ in
O2d = Dry-basis hourly average oxygen section 5;
concentration, percent O2 Appendix G to Part 75—Determination
■ b. Adding a sentence to the end of
O2w = Wet-basis hourly average oxygen of CO2 Emissions.
concentration, percent O2 section 7.2.3;
* * * * * ■ c. Removing the words ‘‘or § 75.12(b)’’
■ 45. Appendix G to Part 75 is amended 2.1.2 Determine the carbon content of and ‘‘or § 75.12,’’ from section 7.2.4;
by: each fuel sample using one of the following ■ d. Revising Table K–1 of section 8;
methods: ASTM D3178–89 (Reapproved and
■ a. Revising section 2.1.2; 2002) or ASTM D5373–02 (Reapproved 2007)
■ e. Adding the words ‘‘or in Table K–
■ b. Removing ‘‘D3174–89 ‘Standard for coal; ASTM D5291–02, Standard Test
Methods for Instrumental Determination of 1’’ following the words ‘‘§ 75.15(h)’’ in
Test Method for Ash in the Analysis
Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in the second sentence of section 11.8.
Sample of Coal and Coke From Coal’ ’’
Petroleum Products and Lubricants, ultimate The revisions and additions read as
and by adding in its place, ‘‘D3174–00,
analysis of oil, or computations based upon follows:
Standard Test Method for Ash in the ASTM D3238–95 (Reapproved 2000) and
Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke from either ASTM D2502–92 (Reapproved 1996) or Appendix K to Part 75—Quality
Coal’’ in section 2.2.1; and ASTM D2503–92 (Reapproved 1997) for oil; Assurance and Operating Procedures
■ c. Removing ‘‘D3178–89 (1997), and computations based on ASTM D1945–96 for Sorbent Trap Monitoring Systems
‘Standard Test Methods for Carbon and (Reapproved 2001) or ASTM D1946–90
* * * * *
Hydrogen in the Analysis Sample of (Reapproved 2006) for gas (all incorporated 7.2.3 * * * The sample flow rate through
Coal and Coke’ ’’ and adding in its place by reference under § 75.6 of this part). a sorbent trap monitoring system during any
‘‘D5373–02 (Reapproved 2007), * * * * * hour (or portion of an hour) in which the unit
Standard Test Methods for Instrumental ■ 46. Appendix K to Part 75 is amended is not operating shall be zero.
Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen, and by: * * * * *
TABLE K–1.—QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL CRITERIA FOR SORBENT TRAP MONITORING SYSTEMS
QA/QC test or specification Acceptance criteria Frequency Consequences if not met
Pre-test leak check ......................... ≤4% of target sampling rate ......... Prior to sampling .......................... Sampling shall not commence
until the leak check is passed.
Post-test leak check ........................ ≤4% of average sampling rate ..... After sampling .............................. ** See Note, below.
Ratio of stack gas flow rate to sam- No more than 5% of the hourly Every hour throughout data col- ** See Note, below.
ple flow rate. ratios or 5 hourly ratios (which- lection period.
ever is less restrictive) may de-
viate from the reference ratio
by more than ± 25%.
Sorbent trap section 2 break- ≤5% of Section 1 Hg mass .......... Every sample ............................... ** See Note, below.
through.
Paired sorbent trap agreement ....... ≤10% Relative Deviation (RD) if Every sample ............................... Either invalidate the data from the
the average concentration is > paired traps or report the re-
1.0 µg/m3. sults from the trap with the
≤ 20% RD if the average con- higher Hg concentration.
centration is ≤ 1.0 µg/m3.
Results are also acceptable if ab-
solute difference between con-
centrations from paired traps is
≤ 0.03 µg/m3.
Spike Recovery Study ..................... Average recovery between 85% Prior to analyzing field samples Field samples shall not be ana-
and 115% for each of the 3 and prior to use of new sorbent lyzed until the percent recovery
spike concentration levels. media. criteria has been met
Multipoint analyzer calibration ......... Each analyzer reading within ± On the day of analysis, before Recalibrate until successful.
10% of true value and r2 ≥ 0.99. analyzing any samples.
ER24JA08.031</GPH>
TABLE K–1.—QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL CRITERIA FOR SORBENT TRAP MONITORING SYSTEMS—Continued
QA/QC test or specification Acceptance criteria Frequency Consequences if not met
Analysis of independent calibration Within ± 10% of true value .......... Following daily calibration, prior to Recalibrate and repeat inde-
standard. analyzing field samples. pendent standard analysis until
successful.
Spike recovery from section 3 of 75–125% of spike amount ........... Every sample ............................... ** See Note, below.
sorbent trap.
RATA ............................................... RA ≤ 20.0% or Mean difference ≤ For initial certification and annu- Data from the system are invali-
1.0 µg/dscm for low emitters. ally thereafter. dated until a RATA is passed.
Gas flow meter calibration .............. Calibration factor (Y) within ± 5% At three settings prior to initial Recalibrate the meter at three ori-
of average value from the most use and at least quarterly at fice settings to determine a
recent 3-point calibration. one setting thereafter. For new value of Y.
mass flow meters, initial cali-
bration with stack gas is re-
quired.
Temperature sensor calibration ...... Absolute temperature measured Prior to initial use and at least Recalibrate. Sensor may not be
by sensor within ± 1.5% of a quarterly thereafter. used until specification is met.
reference sensor.
Barometer calibration ...................... Absolute pressure measured by Prior to initial use and at least Recalibrate. Instrument may not
instrument within ± 10 mm Hg quarterly thereafter. be used until specification is
of reading with a mercury ba- met.
rometer.
** Note: If both traps fail to meet the acceptance criteria, the data from the pair of traps are invalidated. However, if only one of the paired traps
fails to meet this particular acceptance criterion and the other sample meets all of the applicable QA criteria, the results of the valid trap may be
used for reporting under this part, provided that the measured Hg concentration is multiplied by a factor of 1.111. When the data from both traps
are invalidated and quality-assured data from a certified backup monitoring system, reference method, or approved alternative monitoring system
are unavailable, missing data substitution must be used.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7–25071 Filed 1–23–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

Rule: Revisions To The Continuous Emissions Monitoring Rule For The Acid Rain Program, NOx Budget Trading Program, Clean Air Interstate Rule, and The Clean Air Me

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule: Revisions To The Continuous Emissions Monitoring Rule For The Acid Rain Program, NOx Budget Trading Program, Clean Air Interstate Rule, and The Clean Air Me

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thursday,

January 24, 2008

Category NAICS code Examples of potentially regulated industries

to being available in the docket, an separately in any civil or criminal Outline

(a) Commences commercial operation; Summary of Rule Changes g. Modifications to § 75.64

second quarter linearity check season. daily calibrations and interference

is determined when: (a) a calibration considered invalid until the required

current rule requires monthly GCV 3. Requirement to Split Oil Samples

The Congressional Review Act, 5 Continuous emission monitoring,

Hg mass emissions using the excepted the procedure described in section

* * * * * SO2 and NOX pollutant concentrations. method for determining Hg

(c) * * * (Methods 6A and 6B in appendix A–4 concentration.

Trigger conditions Calculation routines

Duration (N) of CEMS

95 or more ............................. N ≤ 24 ................................... Average ................................. 2,160 hours * ......................... Yes.

Duration (N) of CEMS

95 or more ............................................................ N ≤ 24 .......................... Average .............................................................. 2,160 hours.*

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

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

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

* * * * * (b) * * * ■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(viii);

(d)(1)(xii); gas, dry basis; (5) * * *

■ d. Removing the phrase ‘‘and a follows: (xiii) Supplementary RATA

E = N K CHg Q max ( Eq. 1)

(ii) Equation 1 of this section assumes

reduction program that adopts the (ii) * * * 6.2;

6.5.6 * * * SO2; Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D or 7E in average Hg concentration measured by the

■ m. Revising section 2.6; parameter, perform sufficient calibration

times is the cycle time for the analyzer.

flow RATA. more than eight successive calendar quarters

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

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

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

■ f. Revising the terms ‘‘(GHR) h’’ and (incorporated by reference under

TABLE 1.—F- AND Fc-FACTORS 1

Coal (as defined by ASTM D388–99 2):

Where: F, FC = F-factor or carbon-based Fc-factor O2d = Hourly average O2 concentration

cumulative ozone season, cumulative period (quarter, cumulative ozone

Where: Nitrogen in Laboratory Samples of Coal ■ a. Removing the words ‘‘(see

You might also like