Proposed Rule: Air Programs: Federally Administered Emission Trading Programs Source Requirements Modification

Tuesday,
August 22, 2006
Part III
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,
the Clean Air Interstate Rule, and the
Clean Air Mercury Rule; Proposed Rule
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:38 Aug 21, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\22AUP3.SGM 22AUP3
49254 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue, characters, any form of encryption, and
AGENCY NW., Room B–108, Washington, DC be free of any defects or viruses. Docket:
20014. Such deliveries are accepted All documents in the docket are listed
40 CFR Parts 72 and 75 only during the Docket’s normal hours in the http://www.regulations.gov index.
[OAR–2005–0132; FRL–8208–1] of operation and special arrangements Although listed in the index, some
should be made for deliveries of boxed information is not publicly available,
Revisions to the Continuous information. e.g., CBI or other information whose
Emissions Monitoring Rule for the • Mail: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), disclosure is restricted by statute.
Acid Rain Program, NOX Budget Environmental Protection Agency, Certain other material, such as
Trading Program, the Clean Air Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania copyrighted material, will be publicly
Interstate Rule, and the Clean Air Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. available only in hard copy. Publicly
Mercury Rule Please include a total of two copies. We available docket materials are available
request that a separate copy also be sent either electronically in http://
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
to the contact person identified below www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
Agency (EPA).
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC,
ACTION: Proposed rule.
Instructions: Direct your comments to EPA West, Room B102, 1301
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing rule Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005– Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
revisions that would modify existing 0132. EPA’s policy is that all comments DC. The Public Reading Room is open
requirements for sources affected by the received will be included in the public from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
federally administered emission trading docket without change and may be through Friday, excluding legal
programs including the NOX Budget made available online at http:// holidays. The telephone number for the
Trading Program, the Acid Rain www.regulations.gov including any Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
Program, the Clean Air Interstate Rule, personal information provided, unless and the telephone number for the Air
and the Clean Air Mercury Rule. the comment includes information and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742.
The proposed revisions are prompted claimed to be Confidential Business
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
primarily by changes being Information (CBI) or other information
Matthew Boze, Clean Air Markets
implemented by EPA’s Clean Air whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Markets Division in its data systems in Do not submit information that you
Agency, Clean Air Markets Division, MC
order to utilize the latest modern consider to be CBI or otherwise
6204J, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
technology for the submittal of data by protected through http://
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
affected sources. Other revisions www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
DC 20460, telephone (202) 343–9211, e-
address issues that have been raised http://www.regulations.gov Web site is
mail at boze.matthew@epa.gov.
during program implementation, fix an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
Electronic copies of this document can
specific inconsistencies in rule means EPA will not know your identity
be accessed through the EPA Web site
provisions, or update sources or contact information unless you
at: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets.
incorporated by reference. These provide it in the body of your comment.
revisions would not impose significant If you send an e-mail comment directly SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated
new requirements upon sources with to EPA without going through http:// Entities. Entities regulated by this action
regard to monitoring or quality www.regulations.gov, your e-mail primarily are fossil fuel-fired boilers,
assurance activities. address will be automatically captured turbines, and combined cycle units that
DATES: All public comments must be and included as part of the comment serve generators that produce electricity,
received on or before October 23, 2006. that is placed in the public docket and generate steam, or cogenerate electricity
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, made available on the Internet. If you and steam. Some trading programs
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– submit an electronic comment, EPA include process sources, such as process
OAR–2005–0132, by one of the recommends that you include your heaters or cement kilns. Although Part
following methods: name and other contact information in 75 primarily regulates the electric utility
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// the body of your comment with a disk industry, certain State and Federal NOX
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot mass emission trading programs rely on
instructions for submitting comments. read your comment due to technical subpart H of Part 75, and those
• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. difficulties and cannot contact you for programs may include boilers, turbines,
• Fax: (202) 566–1741. clarification, EPA may not be able to combined cycle, and certain process
• Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation consider your comment. Electronic files units from other industries. Regulated
Docket, Environmental Protection should avoid the use of special categories and entities include:
Category NAICS code Examples of potentially regulated industries
Industry ............................................ 221112 and others ........................ Electric service providers Process sources with large boilers, tur-
bines, combined cycle units, process heaters, or cement kilns
where emissions exhaust through a stack.
This table is not intended to be listed in this table could also be Federal Regulations and in 40 CFR Parts
exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide regulated. To determine whether your 96 and 97. If you have questions
for readers regarding entities likely to be facility, company, business, regarding the applicability of this action
regulated by this action. This table lists organization, etc., is regulated by this to a particular entity, consult the person
the types of entities which EPA is now action, you should carefully examine listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
aware could potentially be regulated by the applicability provisions in §§ 72.6, INFORMATION CONTACT section.
this action. Other types of entities not 72.7, and 72.8 of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules 49255
Submitting CBI. Do not submit this I. Detailed Discussion of Proposed Rule Program’’, to support the proposed
information to EPA through http:// Revisions calibration gas audit program. EPA is
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly EPA is in the process of re- also proposing to expand the definition
mark the part or all of the information engineering the data systems associated of ‘‘excepted monitoring system’’ to
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI with the collection and processing of include the sorbent trap and low mass
information on a disk or CD–ROM that emissions, monitoring plan, quality emissions (LME) excepted
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the assurance, and certification data. The re- methodologies for Hg. Finally, today’s
disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then engineering project includes the proposed rule would add definitions of
identify electronically within the disk or creation of a client tool, provided by ‘‘Air Emission Testing Body (AETB)’’
CD–ROM the specific information that EPA that sources will use to evaluate and ‘‘Qualified Individual’’, to support
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one and submit their Part 75 monitoring the proposed stack tester accreditation
complete version of the comment that data. This process change will enable program. See Sections II.H.2 and II.H.3
includes information claimed as CBI, a sources to assess the quality of their of this preamble for a discussion of
copy of the comment that does not data prior to submitting the data using these proposed programs.
contain the information claimed as CBI EPA established checking criteria. The B. General Monitoring Provisions
must be submitted for inclusion in the process will also allow sources to report
public docket. Information so marked their data directly to a database. Having 1. Update of Incorporation by Reference
will not be disclosed except in the data in a true database will allow the (§ 75.6)
accordance with procedures set forth in Agency to implement and assess the Section 75.6 identifies a number of
40 CFR part 2. program more efficiently and will methods and other standards that are
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition streamline access to the data. Also, this incorporated by reference into Part 75.
to being available in the docket, an database structure will enable EPA to This section includes standards
electronic copy of the proposed rule is implement process changes that will published by the American Society for
also available on the WWW through the reduce the redundant reporting of Testing and Materials (ASTM), the
Technology Transfer Network Web site certain types of data. The re-engineered American Society of Mechanical
(TTN Web). Following signature, a copy systems will be supported by a new Engineers (ASME), the American
of the proposed rule will be posted on extensible markup language (XML) data National Standards Institute (ANSI), the
the TTN’s policy and guidance page for format that will replace the record type/ Gas Processors Association (GPA), and
newly proposed or promulgated rules at column format currently used by EPA to the American Petroleum Institute (API).
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN collect electronic data. EPA intends to Changes in § 75.6 would reflect the need
provides information and technology transition existing sources to the new to incorporate recent updates for many
exchange in various areas of air XML electronic data report (XML–EDR) of the referenced standards. The
pollution control. format during the 2008 reporting year. proposed revisions would recognize or
For sources reporting in 2008 for the adhere to these newer standards by
Outline: first time, the new XML–EDR format updating references for the standards
I. Detailed Discussion of Proposed Rule should be used. All sources will be listed in §§ 75.6(a) through 75.6(f).
Revisions required to use the new process Additionally, new §§ 75.6(a)(45)
A. Rule Definitions beginning 2009. through 75.6(a)(48) and 75.6(f)(4) would
B. General Monitoring Provisions incorporate by reference additional
A. Rule Definitions
C. Certification Requirements ASTM and API standards that are
D. Missing Data Substitution The proposed changes to Part 72 relevant to Part 75 implementation.
E. Recordkeeping and Reporting include adding a definition for ‘‘long-
F. Subpart H (NOX Mass Emissions) term cold storage’’ to mean ‘‘the 2. Default Emission Rates for Low Mass
G. Subpart I (Hg Mass Emissions) complete shutdown of a unit intended Emissions (LME) Units
H. Appendix A to last for an extended period of time (at Today’s proposed rule revisions
I. Appendix B least two calendar years) where notice would allow LME units to use site-
J. Appendix D for long-term cold storage is provided specific default SO2 emission rates for
K. Appendix E under § 75.61(a)(7). See Section II.E.4 of fuel oil combustion, in lieu of using the
L. Appendix F this preamble for further discussion. ‘‘generic’’ default SO2 emission rates
M. Appendix G EPA also proposes to modify the specified in Table LM–1 of § 75.19. To
N. Appendix K definition of ‘‘capacity factor’’ so that use this option, a federally enforceable
II. Administrative Requirements the Agency can use the reported permit condition would have to be in
A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory maximum hourly gross load, as place for the unit, limiting the sulfur
Planning and Review content of the oil. This revision would
currently reported in the electronic
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
monitoring plan, to determine whether allow more representative, yet still
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
a unit qualifies for peaking unit status, conservatively high, SO2 emissions data
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132—Federalism
by recalculating the capacity factor. This to be reported from oil-burning LME
F. Executive Order 13175—Consultation is important because the maximum units. The site-specific default SO2
and Coordination With Indian Tribal hourly gross load can be greater than the emission rate would be calculated using
Governments nameplate capacity. Also, when using an equation from EPA publication AP–
G. Executive Order 13045—Protection of heat input to define capacity factor, the 42. The sulfur content used in the
Children From Environmental Health definition would be revised to refer to calculations would be the maximum
and Safety Risks maximum rated hourly heat input rate, weight percent sulfur allowed by the
H. Executive Order 13211—Actions That which is defined in § 72.2. federally-enforceable permit. Sources
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, The proposed changes to § 72.2 would choosing to implement this option
Distribution, or Use also modify the definition of ‘‘EPA would be required to perform periodic
I. National Technology Transfer and Protocol Gas,’’ and add a definition of oil sampling using one of the four
Advancement Act ‘‘EPA Protocol Gas Verification methodologies described in Section 2.2
of Appendix D to Part 75, and would be to expand its use to fuels other than in the Acid Rain Program that qualify to
required to keep records documenting natural gas. use the low mass emissions (LME)
the sulfur content of the fuel. Section 75.11(e) would be re-titled as methodology in § 75.19 are required to
Today’s proposed rule would also ‘‘Special considerations during the report both NOX mass emissions (lb or
revise § 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(G) to clarify that combustion of gaseous fuels’’, and the tons, as applicable) and NOX emission
fuel-and-unit-specific default NOX introductory text of the section would rate (lb/mmBtu) on an hourly, quarterly
emission rates for LME units may be be revised, so that the section would no and annual basis. However, the
determined using data from a longer apply exclusively to units with mathematics in § 75.19(c)(4)(ii) pertains
Continuous Emissions Monitoring SO2 monitors. Rather, it would apply to only to NOX mass emissions, not NOX
System (CEMS) that has been quality- units that use certified flow rate and emission rate. This is most likely
assured according to either Appendix B diluent gas monitors to quantify heat because the criterion for initial and on-
of Part 75 or Appendix F of Part 60, or input. Such units would be required to going LME qualification is based on the
comparably quality-assured under a implement the provisions of either total tons of NOX emitted the calendar
State CEMS program. The current rule revised § 75.11(e)(1) or revised year, rather than on the NOX emission
simply states that 3 years (or 3 ozone § 75.11(e)(3) when gaseous fuel is the rate.
seasons, if applicable) of quality-assured only fuel combusted in the unit. Section Today’s rule would re-title
CEMS data may be used for this 75.11(e)(2) would be removed and § 75.19(c)(4)(ii) as ‘‘NOX mass emissions
purpose, but it does not specify the reserved, as the use of Appendix D and NOX emission rate’’, and would add
acceptable level of QA required. methodology during gaseous fuel a new subparagraph (D) to § 75.19
combustion is not appropriate for a unit (c)(4)(ii), providing instructions for
3. Default Moisture Value for Natural
that uses flow and diluent monitors to determining quarterly and cumulative
Gas
measure heat input. This is because NOX emission rates for an LME unit.
EPA is proposing to allow gas-fired only one heat input methodology is The NOX emission rate for each hour
boilers equipped with CEMS to use allowed for each unit. (lb/mmBtu) would simply be the
default moisture values in lieu of Revised § 75.11(e)(1) would expand appropriate generic or unit-specific
continuously monitoring the stack gas the use of Equation F–23 beyond natural default NOX emission rate defined in
moisture content. Two default values gas combustion to include the the monitoring plan for the type of fuel
are proposed: 14.0% H2O under combustion of any gaseous fuel that being combusted and (if applicable) the
§ 75.11(b), and 18.0% H2O under qualifies for a default SO2 emission rate NOX emission control status. The
§ 75.12(b). The higher default value under Section 2.3.6(b) of Appendix D. quarterly NOX emission rate would be
would apply only when Equation 19–3, The proposed revisions to § 75.11(e)(3) determined by averaging all of the
19–4, or 19–8 (from Method 19 in would be relatively minor. The option hourly NOX emission rates and the
appendix A of Part 60) is used to to use a certified SO2 monitor during cumulative (year-to-date) NOX emission
determine the NOX emission rate. These hours of gaseous fuel combustion would rate would be the arithmetic average of
proposed default values are based on be retained. the quarterly values.
supplemental moisture data provided to A new paragraph (e)(4) would also be
the Agency in a December 13, 2004 added to § 75.11(e). This new provision 6. LME Units—Scope of Applicability
petition from a gas-fired industrial would allow Equation F–23 to be used Today’s rule would revise
source and moisture data collected for the combustion of liquid and solid § 75.19(a)(1) to clarify that the low mass
during EPA’s development of flow rate fuels that meet the definition of ‘‘very emissions (LME) methodology is a
reference Methods 2F and 2G at two gas- low sulfur fuel’’ in § 72.2, if a petition stand-alone alternative to a CEMS and/
fired facilities. (See Docket A–99–14; for a fuel-specific default SO2 emission or the ‘‘excepted’’ monitoring
Items II–A–1 and II–A–7). rate is submitted to the Administrator methodologies in Appendices D, E, and
EPA selected the 10th and 90th under § 75.66 and the Administrator G. In other words, if a unit qualifies for
percentile values from these data, approves the petition. Similar petitions LME status, the owner or operator
rounded to the nearest whole number, would also be accepted for the would be required either to use the LME
as the proposed natural gas default combustion of mixtures of these fuels methodology for all parameters or not to
moisture values. The selection of and for the co-firing of these fuels with use the method at all. No mixing-and-
conservative 90th or 10th percentile gaseous fuel. matching of other monitoring
values from representative moisture EPA believes that expanding the use methodologies with LME would be
data sets is consistent with the approach of Equation F–23 will benefit certain permitted. For example, the owner or
that the Agency has approved in units that are subject to the Acid Rain operator of a qualifying LME unit in the
response to past petition under § 75.66 Program or to the SO2 provisions of the Acid Rain Program would either be
requesting to use site-specific default Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). In required to follow the provisions of
moisture values. particular, the requirement to operate § 75.19 for all parameters (i.e., SO2 and
and maintain an SO2 CEMS could be CO2 mass emissions, NOX emission rate,
4. Expanded Use of Equation F–23 and unit heat input) or to monitor these
waived for units that burn low-sulfur
Today’s proposed rule would revise solid fuels such as wood waste. Also, for parameters using a CEMS, Appendices
§ 75.11(e)(1) to remove the current units that combust non-traditional D, E, and G, or a combination of these
restrictions on the use of Equation F–23 gaseous fuels, Equation F–23 would other methods. EPA has always
to determine the SO2 mass emission provide an alternative way of intended for the LME methodology to be
rate. The current rule restricts the use of quantifying SO2 mass emissions that applied this way, but this was not
this equation to units equipped with does not require either an SO2 CEMS or explicitly stated in § 75.19 and in other
SO2 monitors and to hours when only a certified fuel flowmeter. sections of the rule. In fact,
fuel that meets the Part 72 definition of §§ 75.11(d)(3), 75.12(e)(3), and
‘‘pipeline natural gas’’ or ‘‘natural gas’’ 5. Calculation of NOX Emission Rate— 75.13(d)(3)) suggest that mixing other
is being combusted. EPA proposes to LME Units monitoring methodologies with LME
allow Equation F–23 to be used whether According to §§ 75.58(f), 75.64(a)(4), might not be prohibited. Today’s rule
or not the unit has an SO2 monitor and and 75.64(a)(9), oil and gas-fired units would also make parallel revisions to
these other sections, consistent with the 2. Part 60 Reference Test Methods test run, and the relative deviation (RD)
changes to § 75.19(a)(1), to clarify the On May 15, 2006, EPA promulgated of the results from the two trains must
Agency’s intent. final revisions to EPA reference test not exceed 10 percent.
As part of the May 18, 2005
7. Use of maximum controlled NOX methods 6C, 7E, and 3A, which are
rulemaking, EPA also promulgated
emission rate when using bypass stacks found in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60.
revisions to Subpart Da of the New
(See 71 FR 28082, May 15, 2006).
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
Today’s proposed rule would revise Today’s proposed rule would update,
regulations, requiring continuous Hg
§ 75.17(d)(2) to allow for the calculation (as necessary), various section
emission monitoring for new coal-fired
and use of a maximum controlled NOX references to these reference methods,
electric utility units constructed after
emission rate (MCR) instead of the as well as specify certain options that January 1, 2004. Along with the Subpart
maximum potential NOX emission rate are not to be applied to RATA testing Da revisions, a performance
(MER) whenever an unmonitored under Part 75. Specifically, the specification, PS–12A, for certifying the
bypass stack is used, provided that the following provisions are not permitted required continuous Hg monitors was
add-on controls are not bypassed and unless specific approval is granted by published. PS–12A, like Part 75,
are documented to be operating the Administrator of Part 75: requires RATA testing of all Hg
properly. Documentation of proper add- (1) § 7.1 of the revised EPA Method 7E monitoring systems, using paired
on control operation for such hours of allowing for use of prepared calibration reference method sampling trains;
operation would be required as gas mixtures that are produced in however, note that PS 12–A allows EPA
described in § 75.34(d). The MCR would accordance with Method 205 in Method 29 (from Appendix A–8 of 40
be calculated in a manner similar to the Appendix M of 40 CFR Part 51. EPA CFR Part 60) to be used as an alternative
calculation of the MER, except that the maintains that for RATA testing under to the OH method, whereas Part 75 does
maximum expected NOX concentration Part 75, that reference gases be selected not.
(MEC) would be used instead of the in accordance with § 5.1 of Appendix A The principal acceptance criterion in
maximum potential NOX concentration of 40 CFR Part 75. Section 8.6.6.2 of PS 12–A for the data
(MPC). EPA believes that this proposal (2) § 8.4 of the revised EPA Method 7E from the paired reference method trains
would more fairly account for allowing for the use of a multi-hole (10 percent RD) is the same as in
controlled emissions when unmonitored probe to satisfy the multipoint traverse § 75.22(a)(7). However, PS 12–A
bypass stacks are used. The rule requirement of the method. includes an alternative acceptance
(3) § 8.6 of the revised EPA Method 7E criterion for sources with low Hg
currently requires the use of the MER
allowing for the use of ‘‘Dynamic emissions. If the average Hg
regardless of the operation and usage of
Spiking’’ as an alternative to the concentration during the RATA is 1.0
add-on controls. When § 75.17(d)(2) was
interference and system bias checks of µg/m3 or less, the RD specification is 20
originally promulgated, EPA assumed
the method. This proposed rule would percent. In view of this, today’s
that the add-on controls would be allow for dynamic spiking to be
bypassed whenever a bypass stack is proposed rule would revise
conducted (optionally) as an additional § 75.22(a)(7), to include this same 20
used. EPA is now aware that there are quality assurance check for Part 75
situations where this is not the case. An percent alternative RD specification for
applications. low-emitters. This would harmonize the
example would be a coal-fired unit
3. Mercury Reference Methods Part 60 and Part 75 RATA provisions for
equipped with FGD and SCR add-on
Hg monitors, thereby facilitating
emission controls. If the SCR is Today’s proposed rule would add an compliance for sources subject to both
documented to be working during an alternative acceptance criterion for the sets of regulations.
FGD malfunction and the effluent gases results of mercury (Hg) emission data EPA is also proposing revisions to
are routed through an unmonitored collected with the Ontario Hydro (OH) §§ 75.22(a)(7) and 75.81(c)(1) which
bypass stack after passing through the reference method and would allow the would allow EPA Method 29 to be used
SCR, then the MEC, rather than the use of alternative reference methods for as an alternative to the OH method, both
MER, would be the more appropriate RATAs and for the low mass Hg for RATA testing and for periodic
NOX emission rate to report for the emission testing described in § 75.81(c). emission testing of units with low Hg
bypass hour(s). On May 18, 2005, EPA published the mass emissions (≤ 29 lb/yr). Method 29
Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). That is an established test procedure that
C. Certification Requirements
rule requires coal-fired electric uses atomic absorption spectroscopy to
1. Alternative Monitoring System generating units (EGUs) to reduce Hg determine the concentration of various
Certification emissions, starting in 2010, and to metals, including Hg, in the stack gas.
continuously monitor Hg mass This method is more familiar to
The proposed rule would delete emissions according to Subpart I of Part emission testers than the OH method,
§§ 75.20(f)(1) and (2) from the rule, 75, beginning in 2009. and Method 29 data have been accepted
thereby removing the requirement for Relative accuracy test audits (RATAs) for compliance purposes by the State.
the Administrator to publish each of all continuous Hg monitoring systems Method 29 and the OH method both
request for certification of an alternative are required under CAMR, and Hg measure the total vapor phase Hg in the
monitoring system in the Federal emission testing is required for units effluent. The main difference between
Register, with an associated 60-day seeking to qualify as low mass emitters the two methods is that the OH method
public comment period. This rule under § 75.81(c). The principal performs ‘‘speciation’’ of the vapor
provision is considered unnecessary, in reference method specified for the phase Hg, i.e., it quantifies the elemental
view of the Agency’s authority under RATAs and the emission testing is the and ionic portions of the vapor phase
Subpart E to approve alternative OH method. Alternatively, an Hg separately, whereas Method 29 does
monitoring systems and the rigorous instrumental method approved by the not. However, the CAMR rule does not
requirements that alternative monitoring Administrator may be used. When the require speciation of the vapor phase
systems must meet in order to be OH method is performed, § 75.22(a)(7) Hg. Therefore, Method 29 could be used
certified. requires paired sampling trains for each instead of the OH method.
There would be two caveats on the Conference (EUEC) in Tucson, Arizona, methodology, the various missing data
use of Method 29. First, sources electing a stakeholder meeting was held to algorithms are applied sequentially.
to use Method 29 would be required to discuss mercury monitoring issues. That is, the least conservative algorithm
use paired sampling trains (i.e., two Many of the participants expressed an is applied to the missing data hours
trains sampling the source effluent interest in using portable sorbent trap until the PMA drops below 95%. Then,
simultaneously), and the relative monitoring systems for Hg reference the next algorithm is applied until the
deviation specification in § 75.22(a)(7) method testing, as an alternative to the PMA has dropped below 90%, and so
would have to be met for each run. The OH method. After much internal on.
test results for each valid run would be discussion, EPA believes that a sorbent Part 75 is not clear about which of the
based on the Hg collected in the back trap system could potentially serve as two methods should be used for missing
half of each sampling train (i.e., the an alternative reference method for Hg data substitution. Today’s proposed rule
impinger catch), and the results from emission testing and RATA would revise the text of certain
the two trains would be averaged applications, if it can be adequately paragraphs in §§ 75.33 and 75.32(b), to
arithmetically. demonstrated that the method does not clarify that the stepwise, hour-by-hour
Second, certain analytical and QA have an inherent measurement bias method (which is the least stringent
procedures in the OH method (ASTM when compared to the OH method, and approach) is the preferred one. The
D6784–02) would be followed instead of if sufficiently rigorous quality-assurance Agency favors this approach because it
the corresponding procedures in (QA) procedures are developed and prevents sources from being penalized
Method 29. Specifically, testers would followed when the system is used in the by the retroactive application of more
be required to replace the procedures in field. In view of this, EPA requests stringent missing data algorithms to
sections 7.5.33 and 11.1.3 of Method 29 comment on how such a demonstration hours where the hourly PMA merits the
with the corresponding procedures in might be made and what QA procedures use of less conservative algorithms. EPA
sections 13.4.1.1 through 13.4.1.3 of would be appropriate. In anticipation intends that only the new stepwise,
ASTM D6784–02, and to perform the that a viable reference method using hour-by-hour method be used after
QA/QC procedures in section 13.4.2 of sorbent trap technology may be January 1, 2009, or whenever emissions
the OH method instead of the developed in the near future, the data are to be submitted in XML–format.
procedures in section 9.2.3 of Method Agency is also proposing to add Until this time, either method will be
29. EPA believes that implementing language to § 75.22(a)(7), which would accepted.
these sections of the OH method in lieu allow an ‘‘other suitable’’ reference 2. Substitute Data Values for Controlled
of the corresponding Method 29 method approved by the Administrator Units
provisions will improve the quality of to be used for Hg emission testing and
the data, because the analytical and QA/ For units with add-on emission
RATAs. controls, § 75.34(a)(3) provides that the
QC requirements of the OH method are
more detailed and rigorous than those in D. Missing Data Substitution designated representative (DR) may
Method 29. petition the Administrator under § 75.66
1. Block Versus Step-Wise Approach to report alternative substitute data
EPA is also proposing to allow several
of the sample recovery and preparation During periods of missing CEMS data, values in certain instances. Specifically,
procedures in the OH method to be Part 75 requires substitute data to be when the percent monitor data
followed instead of the Method 29 reported. Special mathematical availability (PMA) for SO2 or NOX is
procedures. In particular: (a) Sections algorithms are used to determine the below 90.0 percent, the DR may petition
13.2.9.1 through 13.2.9.3 of the OH appropriate substitute data values. As to replace the maximum emission rate
method could be followed instead of the length of a missing data period recorded in the last 720 quality-assured
sections 8.2.8 and 8.2.9.1 of RM 29; (b) increases, the percent monitor data monitor operating hours with the
sections 13.2.10.1 through 13.2.10.4 of availability (PMA) decreases, and the maximum controlled emission rate
the OH method could be followed required substitute data values become recorded during that same lookback
instead of sections 8.2.9.2 and 8.2.9.3 of increasingly conservative each time that period, for each missing data hour in
RM 29; (c) section 8.3.4 of RM 29 could a particular PMA ‘‘cut point’’ is reached. which the add-on controls are
be replaced with section 13.3.4 or 13.3.6 The cut points are 95%, 90%, and 80% documented to be operating properly.
of the OH method (as appropriate); and PMA for all parameters except Hg. For Until recently, this petition provision
(d) section 8.3.5 of RM 29 could be Hg, the cut points are slightly lower, i.e., applied only to units with add-on SO2
replaced with section 13.3.5 or 13.3.6 of at 90%, 80% and 70% PMA. or NOX emission controls. However,
the OH method (as appropriate). Use of Historically, EPA’s policy has revisions to Part 75 on May 18, 2005,
these alternative procedures would required sources to use a ‘‘block’’ extended it to include units with add-
increase the accuracy of moisture approach for missing data substitution. on Hg controls (see § 75.38(c)).
content determinations (by using a The PMA at the end of the missing data For several reasons, EPA believes it is
gravimetric rather than a volumetric period has been used to determine appropriate to revise § 75.34(a)(3). First,
technique), and would eliminate of the which mathematical algorithm applies, the 720 hour lookback is only
need for two separate analyses of the and the substitute data value or values appropriate for SO2 and Hg. For NOX,
KMnO4 fraction. prescribed by that one algorithm have the lookback should be 2,160 hours and
Revisions to § 75.59 and to Sections been reported for each hour of the should also be load-based. Second, for
6.5.10 and 7.6.1 of Appendix A to Part missing data period. SO2, Hg, and NOX concentration
75 are also being proposed, for purposes However, EPA has recently revised its monitoring systems, the terms
of consistency with the proposed missing substitution data policy. The ‘‘maximum emission rate’’ and
changes to §§ 75.22(a)(7) and revised policy guidance (see ‘‘Part 75 ‘‘maximum controlled emission rate’’
75.81(c)(1). Emission Monitoring Policy Manual’’, are not appropriate and should be
Finally, the Agency is soliciting Question 15.5) allows sources to apply replaced by ‘‘maximum concentration’’
comment on the use of sorbent traps for the missing data algorithms in a and ‘‘maximum controlled
reference method testing. At the 2006 stepwise manner instead of using the concentration’’, respectively. Third, the
Electric Utility Environmental block approach. Under the stepwise petition provision, as written, applies to
all PMA values below 90.0 percent (that data values for missing data periods in CEMS, the text of § 75.38(a) would be
was the intent when it was originally the fourth tier, when the PMA is below amended to make it consistent with
written), but in light of subsequent 80.0 percent. Proposed § 75.34(a)(5) Table 1 in § 75.33. Proposed § 75.38(a)
revisions to Part 75, it should be would allow the owner or operator to clarifies that the percent monitor data
restricted to a narrower range of PMA replace the maximum potential SO2 or availability (PMA) ‘‘trigger conditions’’
values. Fourth, and most important, NOX concentration (MPC) or the for Hg monitoring systems are different
after more than ten years of maximum potential NOX emission rate from the trigger conditions for all other
implementing the Acid Rain Program, (MER) with a less conservative parameters. For all parameters except
EPA no longer believes that special substitute data value, for missing data Hg, the trigger points that define the
petitions are necessary to use maximum hours where parametric data, (as boundaries of the four missing data tiers
controlled values for missing data described in §§ 75.34(d) and 75.58(b)) are 95 percent, 90 percent, and 80
substitution, because sources with add- are available to verify proper operation percent PMA. However, for Hg the
on controls are required to implement a of the add-on controls. Specifically, for corresponding trigger points are 90
quality assurance/quality control (QA/ SO2 and NOX concentration, the percent, 80 percent and 70 percent,
QC) program that includes the recording replacement value for the MPC would respectively.
of parametric data to document the be the greater of: (a) The maximum Second, EPA proposes to completely
hourly operating status of the emission expected concentration (MEC); or (b) revise the missing data provisions in
controls. This parametric information 1.25 times the maximum controlled § 75.39 for sorbent trap monitoring
must be made available to inspectors value in the standard missing data systems. In the current rule, the missing
and auditors upon request. Therefore, lookback period. For NOX emission rate, data routines for sorbent trap systems
any claim that the emission controls the replacement value for the MER are substantially different from those for
were operating properly during a would be the greater of: (a) The Hg CEMS. At the time of publication of
particular missing data period can be maximum controlled NOX emission rate the Part 75 Hg monitoring provisions,
easily verified through the audit (MCR); or (b) 1.25 times the maximum the Agency believed that a different
process. controlled value in the standard missing approach to missing data substitution
At the time the petition provision in data lookback period. The NOX MCR was appropriate for sorbent traps,
§ 75.34(a)(3) was written, there were would be calculated in the same manner because unlike the Hg CEMS, a sorbent
only three missing data tiers in as the NOX MER (see Appendix A, trap system does not provide real-time
existence, i.e., for PMA values: (1) ≥ 95.0 section 2.1.2.1(b)), except that the MEC, hourly average emissions data.
percent; (2) ≥ 90.0 percent, but < 95.0 rather than the MPC, would be used in Consequently, EPA prescribed a 12-
percent: and (3) < 90.0 percent. The the calculation. month missing data ‘‘lookback’’ period
provision was associated with the third Finally, today’s proposed rule would for the sorbent trap systems. That is, the
tier (PMA < 90.0 percent), for which the revise § 75.38(c) to extend the substitute data values are based on a
required substitute data value is the alternative missing data options for the lookback through the previous 12
maximum value recorded in a specified third and fourth tiers to mercury (Hg) months of sorbent trap sample results,
lookback period. However, on May 26, concentration, and § 75.58(b)(3) would instead of looking back through 720
1999, EPA added a fourth CEMS be revised to be consistent with the quality-assured monitor operating
missing data tier to Part 75. The May proposed revisions to §§ 75.34(a)(3), hours, as is done for the Hg CEMS.
1999 rule revisions did not change the 75.34(a)(5), and 75.38(c). EPA has reconsidered the sorbent trap
missing data algorithms for the third EPA believes that for missing data missing data methodology and has
tier, but the PMA ‘‘cut off’’ point for the hours in which the emission controls concluded that it is unnecessarily
third tier was set at 80.0 percent, and are working properly, these proposed complex and will likely be difficult to
below 80.0 percent PMA, reporting of rule revisions will prevent gross implement and audit. In view of this,
the maximum potential concentration overestimation of emissions during the Agency proposes to amend the
(MPC) or the maximum potential NOX hours when the source is operating its missing data procedures for sorbent trap
emission rate (MER) was required for a emission controls in a manner that is systems, to make them the same as for
missing data period of any length. protective of the environment. When the Hg CEMS. Section 75.39 would be
Today’s proposed rule would remove emission controls are working properly, revised to require that the initial
from § 75.34(a)(3) and § 75.66(f) the there can be as much as a tenfold missing data procedures of § 75.31(b)
requirement to petition the difference between the MPC, MER, or and the standard Hg missing data
Administrator to use the maximum maximum value in a lookback period provisions of § 75.38 be followed for
controlled SO2 or NOX concentration (or and the actual source emissions. The sorbent trap systems. EPA believes that
maximum controlled NOX emission proposed alternative substitute data this missing data approach can work
rate) from the applicable lookback values in §§ 75.34(a)(3) and (a)(5), because for the purposes of Part 75
period. The proposed revisions would though much closer to the actual reporting, the average Hg concentration
simply allow the maximum controlled emissions, would still be conservatively measured by a sorbent trap system is
values to be reported whenever high and would provide the owner or ‘‘back-filled’’ into each hour of the data
parametric data are available to operator with a strong incentive to keep collection period to simulate hour-by-
document that the emission controls are the CEMS operational. The Agency also hour concentration measurements (see
operating properly. The proposed rule believes that the proposed alternative § 75.57(j)(1)(iii)). Thus, the hourly Hg
would further clarify that this reporting data substitution methodology in concentration data stream from a
option applies only to the third missing § 75.34(a)(5) ensures that the substitute sorbent trap system will look essentially
data tier, when the PMA is greater than data values for the fourth tier will the same as the data stream from a
or equal to 80.0 percent, but less than always be higher than the corresponding CEMS, except that the Hg concentration
90.0 percent. substitute data values for the third tier. will ‘‘flat-line’’ (i.e., will not change)
EPA is also proposing to add a new during each data collection period.
paragraph (a)(5) to § 75.34, which would 3. Substitute Data Values for Hg Therefore, the required missing data
allow units with add-on emission EPA is also proposing to revise the Hg lookbacks through 720 hours of quality-
controls to report alternative substitute missing data procedures. First, for Hg assured data could be done on the
sorbent trap data stream, although in 4. Correction of Cross-References E. Recordkeeping and Reporting
some cases, because of the flat-line
For sources in the NOX Budget 1. Revisions to the General Monitoring
effect, when the 720 hours of data are Plan Recordkeeping Requirements
arranged in rank order, the 90th Program that report emissions data only
percentile, 95th percentile, and during the ozone season (i.e., May EPA proposes to revise the monitoring
through September), the quality plan recordkeeping requirements in
maximum values in the lookback might
assurance requirements for the § 75.53, to accommodate its new, re-
be identical.
continuous emission monitoring engineered XML reporting format,
Finally, a new paragraph ‘‘(f)’’ would systems are found in § 75.74(c). In which will replace the current
be added to § 75.39 to address the case §§ 75.74(c)(3)(xi) and (c)(3)(xii), data electronic data reporting (EDR) format
in which the owner or operator elects to validation rules are provided for in 2009. The Subpart H monitoring plan
use a primary Hg CEMS and a situations in which required quality- record keeping provisions in
redundant backup sorbent trap system assurance tests of the CEMS are due by § 75.73(c)(3) (for sources reporting NOX
(or vice-versa). In that case, separate Hg the end of the second or third calendar mass emissions) and the Subpart I
concentration data streams would be quarter, but are not completed on time. monitoring plan record keeping
recorded and maintained for the two In some cases, these rule provisions provisions in § 75.84 (for sources
systems. For reporting purposes, data require the use of missing data reporting Hg mass emissions) would be
from the primary monitoring system substitution, and refer to the similarly revised to reflect the transition
would be reported whenever that ‘‘appropriate missing data routine in to XML format.
system is able to provide quality- § 75.31, § 75.33 or § 75.37’’. These EPA proposes to add two new
assured data (see § 75.10(e)), and references to specific missing data paragraphs, (g) and (h), to § 75.53,
quality-assured data from the redundant sections are inadequate, because they which describe the required monitoring
backup system (if available) could be only cover initial missing data (for all plan data elements in EPA’s re-
reported during primary monitoring parameters) and the standard missing engineered XML data structure.
system outages. However, when both data procedures for NOX , flow rate, and Proposed § 75.53(a)(1) would require all
the primary and redundant backup moisture. Sections 75.34 through 75.36 affected units to follow the provisions of
monitoring systems are down and are not referenced, which address paragraphs (g) and (h) instead of the
quality-assured data from a reference missing data substitution for units with existing recordkeeping requirements of
add-on emission controls and for paragraphs (e) and (f), on and after
method or approved alternative
diluent gas (O2 or CO2) data used for January 1, 2009. However, early
monitoring system are also unavailable,
heat input rate determination. Many implementation of the XML format
proposed § 75.39(f) would require the
NOX Budget Program units are equipped would be allowed or, in some cases,
appropriate substitute data values to be with add-on NOX emission controls, and required. In 2008, existing sources
derived from a lookback through the a great number use data from a CO2 or would be allowed to choose between the
previous 720 hours of quality-assured O2 monitor to determine the hourly heat EDR format and XML, and new sources
data reported in the electronic quarterly input rate. In view of this, today’s rule reporting for the first time in 2008
report, irrespective of the source of would revise §§ 75.74(c)(3)(xi) and would be required to use XML.
those data, i.e., whether they were from (c)(3)(xii) by replacing each of the cross- Table 1 summarizes the data elements
the primary system, the redundant references to specific missing data or requirements in § 75.53 that would be
backup system, a reference method, or sections with a more general reference removed, replaced or added as a result
an approved alternative monitoring to the entire block of CEMS missing data of transitioning from the current EDR to
system. sections, i.e., §§ 75.31 through 75.37. XML EDR format.
TABLE 1.—MONITORING PLAN CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH XML FORMAT

Data element(s) or requirement(s) Proposed action(s) Comments
• Facility short name ........................................................ Remove .............................. These data elements would be collected and main-
• Unit program classification tained through the Certificate of Representation form,
• Unit boiler type the CAMD Business System, or internally by EPA.
• Date of commence operation (Subpart H units)
• Date of commence commercial operation (Acid Rain
units)
• Unit retirement date
• Program code
• Reporting frequency
• Program participation date
• State regulation code
• State or local agency code
• EIA cross-reference information.
• Recording and reporting of information associated Relocate ............................. Relocate the requirement to record and report this in-
with monitoring system certification, recertification, and formation to § 75.59, the quality-assurance record-
other events. keeping section.
• Fuel classification for boiler .......................................... Remove .............................. These data elements are deemed unnecessary for the
•
Primary/secondary control indicator new XML reporting format.

• Type of fuel associated with each monitoring method-
ology
• Primary/secondary methodology indicator
• Appendix E correlation curve segment data.
TABLE 1.—MONITORING PLAN CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH XML FORMAT—Continued

• Component status ......................................................... Replace .............................. In § 75.53(g), use activation date/hour and deactivation
• Formula status date/hour instead of status codes to better track up-
• Submission status of fuel flowmeter data. dates to monitoring components, formulas, and fuel
flowmeter information.
• Indicator of exemption from multi-load flow RATAs ..... Add ..................................... These new data elements are needed to properly as-
• Shape of stack or duct cross-section sess specific Part 75 quality assurance/quality control
• Stack/duct material of construction (QA/QC) requirements and exemptions.
• Flag to indicate that a monitored location is a duct
• Indicator of non-load based units.
• Analyzer range code ..................................................... Add ..................................... Provide the measurement range (high, low, dual) and
• Moisture measurement basis. moisture basis (wet or dry) for each CEMS compo-
nent type (SO2, NOX, CO2, etc.)
• Provide the monitoring methodologies for each indi- Replace .............................. For each parameter, associate the monitoring method-
vidual unit. ology with the monitored lcoation (unit, stack or duct).
• Represent bypass stack monitoring as a separate Integrate bypass stack monitoring with other meth-
methodology. odologies. Only one monitoring methodology per
paramter would be allowed.
• For dual-range applications, indicate the trigger point Add ..................................... Many times data begin to be recorded on the high
at which the component switches from the normal scale at a certain ‘‘trigger point’’, before the full-scale
measurement scale to the secondary scale. of the low range is reached. EPA needs this informa-
tion to determine when certain QA tests of the high-
scale are required.
• Require operating range and normal load information Revise ................................ In § 75.53(g), require operating range and maximum
to be reported for units with CEMS and units using load information for all affected units. Require normal
optional fuel flow-to-load ratio test. load determination for all except peaking units. Sepa-
rate the date of historical load analysis from activa-
tion date of the operating range and load information.
• Duct width at test section .............................................. Add ..................................... Add data elements to § 75.53(e) and (g), describing
• Duct depth at test section monitoring plan requirements for units with rectan-
• WAF gular ducts that apply a wall effects adjustment factor
• Method of determining WAF (WAF) to their flow rate data. (See Section II.E.2 for
• WAF effective date and hour further discussion.)
• WAF no longer effective date and hour
• WAF determination date
• Number of WAF test runs
• Number of Method 1 traverse points in WAF test
• Number of test ports in WAF test
• Number of Method 1 traverse points in reference flow
RATA.
2. Discussion of Wall Effects method, known as CTM–041, has been EDR record type 910 to report the WAF
Adjustment Requirements for adopted as a conditional test method by data. But record 910, unlike the other
Rectangular Ducts EPA. A conditional test method differs EDR record types, has no fixed data
from a reference method in that it is not elements or fields. This created
In 1999, EPA published a new in the Code of Federal Regulations, but problems when the WAF information
reference method, Method 2H, in it is recognized as having technical began to be reported. Even though
Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60. Method merit. Sources interested in using a detailed examples were provided in the
2H allows the owner or operator of a conditional method in a particular EPA guidance, a significant portion of
unit with an installed flow monitor to program must obtain permission from the WAF data were being entered into
correct the measured gas flow rates for the regulatory agency administering the the wrong columns of the 910 records,
velocity decay near the stack wall (i.e., program. making it difficult to perform electronic
‘‘wall effects’’). Applying Method 2H Since 2004, when CTM–041 was audits of the information.
greatly reduces the possibility of over- adopted as a conditional EPA test In view of this, EPA created two new
reporting SO2 and NOX mass emissions, method, many Acid Rain and NOX EDR record types, RT 532 and RT 617,
which are directly proportional to the Budget Program sources have requested to handle the rectangular duct WAF
stack flow rate. However, Method 2H (and received) permission from EPA to data. Record type 532, which is a
applies only to circular stacks. use it for Part 75 monitoring. As a monitoring plan record, summarizes the
Consequently, Acid Rain and NOX condition of these approvals, the results of each WAF determination.
Budget Program units with flow sources were asked to report the Record type 617 is a quality-assurance
monitors installed on rectangular stacks essential wall effects information in record and is submitted along with the
or ducts (estimated at about 10 percent their quarterly electronic data reports results of each flow RATA performed at
of the affected units with flow monitors)
(EDRs). However, EPA had not a rectangular stack or duct, when EPA
were unable to benefit from the use of developed the necessary electronic Method 2 is used and a wall effects
a wall effects adjustment factor (WAF). record types (RTs) to accommodate the correction is applied.
To remedy this situation, a wall rectangular duct WAF information. The Agency provided a mechanism
effects correction method for rectangular Therefore, the Agency issued guidance, (the ‘‘Monitoring Data Checking’’ (MDC)
stacks and ducts was developed. The instructing the sources to use existing Software) by which a source could
create the new EDR records and add rectangular duct WAF data elements 3. Revisions to General Recordkeeping
them to the quarterly report, without using these record types. The proposed Provisions for Specific Situations
having to upgrade the data acquisition requirements to record and report the
and handling system (DAHS). To date, results of the WAF determinations in Today’s proposed rule would make a
use of the new record types has been the monitoring plan are found in series of modifications to § 75.58 to
voluntary, and the affected sources have §§ 75.53(e) and (g) and in § 75.64. For a support the new XML data structure.
been cooperative. Nevertheless, today’s discussion of the proposed requirement These are summarized in Table 2.
rule would make mandatory the to record and report the RATA support
recording and reporting of the key data, see Section II.E.5.k, below.
TABLE 2.—PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE GENERAL RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS IN § 75.58

• For Appendix D units, report ID numbers of formulas Add to § 75.58(c) ................ This would be required on and after January 1, 2009.
used to calculate SO2 mass emissions and heat input
rate.
• For Appendix E units, report the heat input rate for- Add to § 75.58(d) ................ This would be required on and after January 1, 2009.
mula ID for each unit operating hour.
• For LME units that combust more than one type of Revise § 75.58(f) ................ Report the fuel type that produces the highest emission
fuel, report the fuel type that produces the highest rate for each parameter individually (i.e., for SO2,
NOX emission rate. NOX, and CO2, as applicable).
• For LME units under § 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(C)(9), indicate Add to § 75.58(f) ................. This flag is needed to ensure that the proper NOX
whether unit is operating at base or peak load, each emission factor is being applied.
hour.
• For LME units, flag each hour in which multiple fuels Add to § 75.58(f) ................. This flag is needed to ensure that the proper emission
are combusted. factors are used for multiple-fuel hours.
• For LME units using long-term fuel flow, report the Revise § 75.58(f) ................ Require only the system ID. Long-term fuel flow sys-
component and system ID codes. tems have only one component.
4. Proposed Revisions to the QA/QC assurance and quality control

Recordkeeping Provisions recordkeeping provisions in § 75.59, in
EPA is proposing to make a series of support of the XML data format. These
revisions and additions to the quality are summarized in Table 3.
TABLE 3.—PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE QA/QC RECORDKEEPING PROVISIONS OF § 75.59

• Describe each recertification event, and the date Revise § 75.59(a)(8) ........................... Expand to include events that require certification
and type of each recertification test. and diagnostic testing. Add requirement to re-
port conditional data validation begin date (if ap-
plicable). Corresponds to current EDR record
type 556.
• Record component and system ID codes for Revise §§ 75.59(a) and (b) ................. Require only the component ID for these tests.
daily calibrations, 7-day calibration error tests, This requirement would be effective on and after
cycle time tests, linearity checks, flow monitor January 1, 2009. The cycle time test for NOX-
leak checks and interference tests, and fuel flow- diluent systems would be simplified.
meter accuracy tests.
• Record the test number and reason for test, for Revise § 75.59(a)(1)(viii) ..................... Clarify that test number and reason for test code
daily calibrations and 7-day calibration error tests. apply only to 7-day calibration error tests, not to
daily calibrations.
• Report the span value with the results of each Remove from § 75.59(a)(3)(ii) ............. The span value in the monitoring plan records will
linearity check. be used to evaluate the linearity checks.
• Provide an on-line or off-line indicator flag for all Add to § 75.59(a)(1) ............................ This flag is needed to properly assess the hour-
calibration error tests. by-hour quality-assurance status of CEMS fol-
lowing calibration error tests.
• For flow-to-load tests of multiple stack configura- Add, as § 75.59(a)(4)(vii)(M) ............... This addition is needed for consistency with the
tions, indicate whether separate reference ratios flow-to-load test reporting instructions (current
are calculated for each stack. EDR record type 605).
• Report sufficient information to validate all grace Remove and reserve EPA’s checking software no longer needs this in-
period claims. § 75.59(a)(12)(iii). formation to evaluate grace periods.
• Record the component and system ID codes for Revise § 75.59(b)(4)(i)(A) ................... On and after January 1, 2009, record only the sys-
each fuel flow-to-load ratio test. tem ID for these tests.
• Report Appendix E correlation curve test data on Revise § 75.59(b)(5) ........................... On and after January 1, 2009, report this data on
a monitoring system basis. a component basis.
• Report the type(s) of fuel(s) combusted during Remove § 75.59(b)(5)(i)(H) ................. This information is not needed in the new XML
each run of an Appendix E correlation curve test. format and would not be reported after Decem-
ber 31, 2008.
• Report the monitoring system ID code with ref- Add, as § 75.59(b)(4)(ii)(N) ................. This requirement is consistent with the reporting
erence fuel flow-to-load ratio test data. instructions for the reference fuel flow-to-load
ratio (current EDR record type 629).
TABLE 3.—PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE QA/QC RECORDKEEPING PROVISIONS OF § 75.59—Continued

• For LME units, indicate which test runs are used Add, as § 75.59(d)(1)(xiii) ................... This requirement is consistent with the reporting
to calculate fuel-and-unit-specific NOX emission instructions for NOX emission testing of LME
rates. units (current EDR version 2.2, record type
650).
• For LME units, multiply the tested NOX emission Revise § 75.59(d)(2)(iii) and add new This requirement applies only to turbines that op-
rate by 1.15, if applicable. §§ 75.59(d)(2)(vi) and (vii). erate only at base or peak load. Consistent with
the reporting instructions (current EDR version
2.2, record type 650), reporting of an hourly
base or peak load indicator and the default NOX
emission rate for peak load operation would be
required.
• Record the date and hour of completion of all re- Add § 75.59(f) ..................................... This requirement would be effective on and after
quired DAHS verifications, whether for initial cer- January 1, 2009. EPA needs this information to
tification, recertification, or other events. properly establish provisional certification or re-
certification dates. Proposed changes to
§ 75.63(a)(2)(iii) would allow this information to
be reported electronically as part of the certifi-
cation or recertification application.
• Record the appropriate reference method data Add § 75.59(e) .................................... For periodic testing of low mass emission units,
elements for Hg emission tests of low-emitting recording of the reference method data ele-
units. ments in either § 75.59(a)(7)(vii), (viii), or (x)
would be required, depending on which ref-
erence method is used for the testing.
• Monitoring system ID Add, as § 75.59(a)(7)(ix) ..................... Recording of certain data elements and test re-
• Test number sults would be required for units with rectan-
• Operating level gular ducts/stacks that apply a wall effects ad-
• RATA end date and time justment factor (WAF) to correct their flow rate
• Number of Method 1 traverse points data. These data elements would be required
• Wall effects adjustment factor for each flow RATA.
• Percent CO2 and O2 in the stack gas, dry basis Add, as § 75.59(a)(7)(x) ...................... Recording of certain data elements would be re-
• Moisture content of the stack gas (percent H2O) quired when using Method 29 for the RATA of a
• Average stack gas temperature (°F) Hg monitoring system. These data elements
• Dry gas volume metered (dscm) would be required for each RATA run.
• Percent isokinetic
• Particulate Hg collected in the front half of the
sampling train, corrected for the front-half blank
value (µg)
• Total vapor phase Hg collected in the back half
of the sampling train, corrected for the back-half
blank value (µg)
5. Other Reporting Issues years after being placed in LTCS, the emissions reduction program that
a. Long-Term Cold Storage and Deferred notification and recertification adopts the monitoring and reporting
Units requirements would apply. Fourth, the provisions of Part 75. Examples of such
proposed rule would exempt a unit in programs include the Clean Air
The proposed changes to Part 75 LTCS from quarterly emissions Interstate Regulation (CAIR), which is
would clarify the issue of ‘‘long-term reporting under § 75.64 until the unit scheduled to begin in 2008 and the
cold storage (LTCS)’’. First, as recommences operation. Parallel rule Clean Air Mercury Regulation (CAMR),
previously noted, a definition of ‘‘long- provisions and appropriate cross- which goes into effect in 2009. The
term cold storage’’ would be added to references regarding quarterly reporting revisions to §§ 75.4(d) and 75.61(a)(3)
§ 72.2. LTCS would mean that the unit requirements for Subpart H and Subpart are deemed necessary because the CAIR
has been completely shut down and I units would be added to §§ 75.73(f)(1) and CAMR rules do not address
placed in storage and that the shutdown and 75.84(f)(1), respectively. Finally, deferred units.
is intended to last for an extended EPA notes that these proposed LTCS Revised § 75.4(d) would require the
period of time (at least two calendar provisions are not intended to apply to owner or operator of a deferred unit to
years). Second, a new paragraph, (a)(7), periods of non-operation of units that provide notice of unit shutdown and
would be added to § 75.61. Proposed are ‘‘on-call’’ and available for dispatch. recommencement of commercial
§ 75.61(a)(7) would require the owner or EPA also proposes to revise the operation, either according to
operator to provide notifications when a provisions of §§ 75.4(d) and 75.61(a)(3) § 75.61(a)(3) (for planned shutdowns
unit is placed in LTCS and when the pertaining to ‘‘deferred’’ units, i.e., units such as scheduled maintenance outages
unit re-commences operation. Third, for which a planned or unplanned and for unplanned, forced unit outages)
§ 75.20(b) would be modified to require outage prevents the required continuous or § 75.61(a)(7) (for units in long-term
recertification of all monitoring systems monitoring systems from being certified cold storage). For all of these
when a unit re-commences operations by the compliance date. The scope of circumstances involving deferred units,
after a period of long-term cold storage. § 75.4(d) would be broadened beyond the Part 75 continuous monitoring
If a source claiming LTCS status re- the Acid Rain Program to include units systems would have to be certified
commenced operation sooner than two in a State or Federal pollutant mass within 90 unit operating days or 180
calendar days (whichever comes first) of each electronic quarterly report’’. collect and process all diagnostic test
the date that the unit recommences Rather, inclusion of the monitoring plan results submitted in quarterly reports in
commercial operation. In the time in the report would be optional, and the current EDR format.
interval between the unit re-start and monitoring plan updates would be made
g. Modifications to § 75.64
the completion of the required either prior to or concurrent with (but
certification tests, the owner or operator not later than) the date of submission of As part of its data systems re-
would be required to report emissions the quarterly report. These proposed engineering effort, EPA proposes to
data, using either: (1) Maximum revisions would allow sources to revise § 75.64(a) to incorporate language
potential values; (2) the conditional data maintain their monitoring plan describing the transition from the
validation procedures of § 75.20(b)(3); information separate from the quarterly current reporting requirements of
(3) EPA reference methods; or (4) report. However, this flexibility would paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(8)
another procedure approved by petition only be available to sources reporting in through (a)(15) to the new requirements
to the Administrator under § 75.66. the new XML–EDR format under the re- of paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(15).
Today’s proposed rule would revise engineered data submission process. Note that only the requirements of
the notification requirements of Until re-engineering of the data systems paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of the
§ 75.61(a)(3) to be consistent with the is complete, EPA will continue to current rule would be replaced, by the
changes to § 75.4(d). For planned unit collect and process all electronic requirements of paragraphs (a)(3)
outages, the owner or operator would be monitoring plan data submitted in through (a)(7). Proposed paragraphs
required to provide notice of shutdown quarterly reports in the current EDR (a)(3) through (a)(7) better describe the
at least 21 days prior to the compliance format. separation of the monitoring plan and
date. For unplanned outages, notice quality assurance test information from
would be provided within 7 days after d. EPA Form 7610–14 the quarterly emissions report. Current
the shutdown. For both planned and For each certification and paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(7) and
unplanned outages, notice of the date on recertification application, §§ 75.63(a)(1) (a)(9) through (a)(11) would remain
which the unit is expected to resume and (a)(2) require hardcopy EPA form unchanged, but would be renumbered
operation would be provided at least 21 7610–14 to be submitted to the as paragraphs (a)(8) through (a)(15).
days prior to that date. Proposed Administrator along with the Current paragraph (a)(8) would be
§ 75.61(a)(3) also includes provisions to certification or recertification test removed.
address situations in which there are results in EDR format. However,
h. Steam Load Reporting
changes to any of the planned or significant upgrades to EPA’s data
projected dates. systems have been made in recent years, Historically, Part 75 has required
and Form 7610–14 is no longer needed units that produce electrical or thermal
b. Notice of Initial Certification to process the applications. Therefore, output to report unit load either in
Deadline §§ 75.63(a)(1)(i)(A) and (a)(2)(i) would megawatts or in thousands of pounds
EPA proposes to revise § 75.61(8) to be revised to remove the requirement to per hour of steam. Today’s proposed
require new and newly-affected sources submit Form 7610–14 to the rule would add a third option, i.e., to
to notify EPA when the monitoring Administrator. report load in units of mmBtu/hr of
system certification deadline is reached. steam thermal output. This option is
Depending on the program(s) to which e. LME Applications needed to accommodate emissions
the unit is subject and whether the unit EPA is proposing to remove the trading programs in which allowance
is new or newly-affected, this date will requirement from § 75.63(a)(1)(ii)(A) for allocations are made on an electrical or
be the earlier of 90 unit operating days a hardcopy LME certification thermal output basis, rather than a heat
or 180 calendar days after the unit: (a) application to be submitted to the input basis. Certain units in these
Commences commercial operation; (b) Administrator. Only the electronic programs (e.g., industrial boilers) do not
commences operation; or (c) becomes an portion of the application, including the produce electrical output and would
affected unit. The Agency must know monitoring plan and LME qualification have to report thermal output instead. In
this date to correctly assess when to records, would be sent to EPA. The the current rule, steam load is expressed
begin counting emissions against hardcopy portion of the LME only in thousands of pounds per hour,
allowances pursuant to § 72.9. Knowing application would be sent to the State which does not provide the necessary
this date also confirms that the and to the EPA Regional Office. thermal output information. EPA
monitoring systems either have or have therefore proposes to add text to the
f. Reporting Test Data for Diagnostic
not been certified by the legal deadline. following sections of Part 75, describing
Events
the new thermal output reporting
c. Monitoring Plan Submittal Deadline EPA proposes to revise option: §§ 75.16(e)(3), 75.57(b)(3),
Today’s proposed rule would change § 75.63(a)(2)(iii) to make the reporting of 75.59(b)(4)(ii); Appendix A, Sections
the submittal deadline for the initial the results of diagnostic tests more 7.7(a) and 7.7(c); Appendix B, Sections
monitoring plan for new and newly- flexible. Rather than requiring these test 2.2.5(a) and 2.2.5(a)(2); Appendix D,
affected units from 45 days to 21 days results to be reported in the electronic Sections 2.1.7.1(a), 2.1.7.1(c), 2.1.7.2(a),
prior to the initial certification testing. quarterly report for the quarter in which and 2.1.7.2(c); and Appendix E, Section
This proposed revision would the tests are performed, they could 2.4.1.
synchronize the initial monitoring plan either be submitted prior to or
submittal with the initial test notice (see concurrent with that quarterly report. i. Test Notification Requirements—Hg
proposed changes to §§ 75.62(a)(1) and However, this flexibility in the reporting Low Mass Emission Units
(2), §§ 75.73(e)(1) and (2) for Subpart H of diagnostic test results would only be Section 75.61(a)(5) of the current rule
units, and §§ 75.84(e)(1) and (e)(2) for available to sources reporting in the new requires the owner or operator or the
Subpart I units). XML–EDR format under the re- designated representative to provide 21-
EPA also proposes to remove the engineered data submission process. day advance notice for various periodic
requirement in § 75.62(a)(1) that the Until re-engineering of the data systems quality-assurance tests. In particular,
monitoring plan must be submitted ‘‘in is complete, EPA will continue to this notice must be provided to the
Administrator, to the appropriate EPA (see §§ 75.64(a)(2)(xiii), 75.73(f)(1)(ii)(K) require a NOX concentration system to
Regional Office and to the State or local and 75.84(f)(1)(ii)(I)). The wall effects be identified in the monitoring plan, in
agency (unless a particular agency data elements that must be reported are addition to the NOX emission rate
issues a waiver from the requirement) found in §§ 75.59(a)(7)(ii) and (a)(7)(iii). system. The NOX concentration system
for the semiannual or annual relative These data are not reported in the would be used only to determine NOX
accuracy tests of CEMS, and for re-tests monitoring plan, but are submitted mass emissions, and the NOX emission
of both Appendix E peaking units and along with flow RATA results, as rate system would be used only to meet
low mass emissions (LME) units. supplementary information. the ARP requirement to report NOX in
Under Subpart I of Part 75, certain For rectangular stacks and ducts, lb/mmBtu.
low-emitting units covered by CAMR some of the same supporting data Although it is possible with the
may qualify under §§ 75.81(b) through elements in §§ 75.59(a)(7)(ii) and current EDR format to identify multiple
(d) to perform periodic (semiannual or (a)(7)(iii) are needed for flow RATAs methodologies for a parameter, this was
annual) Hg emission testing in lieu of performed using Method 2F or 2G, intended for ARP applications, not for
operating and maintaining continuous when wall effects corrections are NOX mass emission measurement.
Hg monitoring systems. Today’s applied. Additional supporting data Multiple methodology records for SO2
proposed rule would expand elements, not in the current rule, are are sometimes necessary when a bypass
§ 75.61(a)(5) and add corresponding also needed for Method 2 flow RATAs stack is used. However, as discussed in
introductory text to § 75.61(a)(1) to when wall effects adjustments are made. Section II.E.1 of this preamble, the
require the owner or operator or the In view of this, today’s rule would reporting of monitoring methodologies
designated representative to provide 21 revise the text of §§ 75.64(a)(2)(xiii), is being restructured as part of EPA’s re-
day notice of these periodic Hg emission 75.73(f)(1)(ii)(K) and 75.84(f)(1)(ii)(I) engineering effort. Bypass stack
tests to EPA and to the State. and would add RATA support data methods are being integrated with other
elements to a new paragraph, (vii), in monitoring methods and will no longer
j. Hardcopy Reports for Retests of Hg
§ 75.59(a)(7). EPA believes that these be considered stand-alone
Low Mass Emission Units
proposed changes will clarify which methodologies.
Sections 75.60(b)(6) and (b)(7) of the wall effects data elements must be
current rule require the designated 3. Reporting of Subpart H Facility
reported for circular stacks, which ones Information
representative (DR) to submit the results
are reported for rectangular stacks and
of certain periodic quality-assurance Consistent with the proposed
ducts, and which data elements must be
tests to the appropriate EPA Regional revisions to § 75.64, EPA proposes to
reported for both types of stacks.
Office or to the State or local agency, revise § 75.73(f)(1), to phase out the
when the test results are requested in F. Subpart H (NOX Mass Emissions) requirement of § 75.73(f)(1)(i)(B) to
writing (or by electronic mail). In include facility location information in
1. Subpart H Diluent Monitoring
particular, the results of semiannual or each quarterly report.
Systems
annual RATAs of CEMS and the routine
For coal-fired Subpart H units that 4. Linearity Check Requirements for
re-tests of Appendix E units may be
calculate NOX mass emissions as the Ozone Season-Only Reporters
requested. If requested, the test results
must be submitted within 45 days after product of NOX concentration and flow For Subpart H sources that report
the test is completed or within 15 days rate and are required to monitor and emissions data on an ozone season-only
of the request, whichever is later. report the unit heat input, § 75.71(a)(2) (OSO) basis, today’s proposed rule
Today’s rule would add a new requires the installation of an ‘‘O2 or would revise the linearity check
paragraph (b)(8) to § 75.60, requiring the CO2 diluent gas monitor’’. Consistent provisions in §§ 75.74(c)(2), (c)(2)(i),
DR to provide, upon request from EPA with the definition of a CEMS in § 72.2, (c)(2)(ii), (c)(3)(ii), (c)(3)(vi), and
or the State, the results of the this diluent monitor, which is only used (c)(3)(viii). Currently, OSO reporters are
semiannual or annual mercury emission for the heat input determination, should required to do a pre-season linearity
tests required under § 75.81(d)(4) for be described as an ‘‘O2 or CO2 check, an in-season second quarter
low-emitting units covered by CAMR. monitoring system’’. Today’s proposed linearity check (in May or June, if the
The time frame for submitting these Hg rule would revise the text of unit operates for ≥168 hours in May and
emission test results would be the same § 75.71(a)(2) accordingly. June), and a third quarter linearity
as for the RATAs and Appendix E re- check, if the unit operates for ≥168
2. Identifying a NOX Mass Methodology hours in that quarter. Many sources
tests.
EPA is proposing to revise § 75.72 to have misunderstood these rule
k. Wall Effects Adjustment Factors clarify that only one NOX mass provisions, particularly the requirement
As previously discussed in Section emissions methodology may be to perform an in-season linearity check
II.E.2 of this preamble, today’s rule identified in the monitoring plan at any in the second quarter.
would require sources with flow given time. Designation of primary and Since the beginning of the NOX
monitors installed on rectangular stacks secondary NOX mass calculation Budget Program, there have been a
or ducts to report the results of wall methodologies would no longer be number of instances where sources have
effects adjustment factor (WAF) allowed. EPA believes that one performed pre-season linearity checks
determinations in the monitoring plan, methodology for NOX mass emissions is in April, but have not done the required
whenever Conditional Method CTM– sufficient. If a source is subject to both in-season linearity checks in May or
041 is used to adjust the measured stack Subpart H and to the Acid Rain Program June. In some cases, this has resulted in
gas flow rates for the effects of velocity (ARP) and is concerned about losing CEMS out-of-control periods and has
decay near the stack wall. NOX data when the diluent component required the use of missing data
For sources with flow monitors of the NOX emission rate system is out- substitution. These sources apparently
installed on circular stacks, reporting of of-control, that source should choose believed that the April tests were
wall effects information is currently the NOX concentration times flow rate sufficient to satisfy both the pre-season
required when Method 2H is used in calculation method as the NOX mass and second quarter linearity check
conjunction with Method 2, 2F or 2G calculation methodology. This would requirements because for year-round
reporters, linearity checks are required done in April fulfills the second quarter RATA being used for data validation in
only once per quarter. linearity check requirement. Related the current ozone season was performed
The current rule also requires OSO Section 75.74(c)(3)(viii) would be during the last ozone season, the CEMS
reporters to operate and maintain each removed and reserved. Further, would have to be operated, calibrated
CEMS and to perform daily calibration proposed § 75.74(c)(3)(ii)(B) would and maintained for the entire off-season
error tests, in the time period extending require the third quarter linearity check from October 1 through April 30.
from the hour of completion of the pre- to be conducted either by July 30 or Compliance with this type of
season linearity check through April 30. within a 168 operating hour period of requirement is difficult for EPA to
EPA has found that this rule provision conditional data validation thereafter. assess, as previously explained in
is not well-understood by the affected Finally, proposed § 75.74(c)(3)(ii)(G) paragraph 4 of this section. Also, many
sources. It is also difficult for the would address the case where a unit sources choosing the OSO reporting
Agency to assess compliance with the operates infrequently and the 168 option find this operation and
provision, since sources are not required operating hour conditional data maintenance (O&M) requirement to be
to report the results of any off-season validation period associated with the counter-intuitive, because they expect to
calibration error tests done prior to April linearity check extends through be required to meet Part 75 monitoring
April. Further, when pre-season the second quarter, into the third obligations only during the ozone
linearity checks are done several quarter. In that case, if the linearity season. If it were discovered during an
months before the ozone season, the check is performed and passed in the audit that this O&M requirement had
quality of the data at the start of the third quarter, before the 168 operating not been met, a facility could incur
ozone season is somewhat questionable. hour window expires, then that one substantial data loss. Further, if a CEMS
In view of these considerations, linearity check would satisfy all three of is not maintained in a manner
today’s proposed rule would revise the ozone season linearity check consistent with normal operating
§ 75.74(c)(2) to restrict the time period requirements, i.e., for the pre-season, for practices for an extended period of time
in which pre-season linearity checks the second quarter, and for the third following a RATA that was done long
may be conducted. EPA proposes to quarter. before the ozone season, the results of
require the pre-season linearity checks EPA believes that the proposed that RATA may not be a true indicator
to be done in the month of April. All linearity check schedule for OSO of the CEMS data quality at the start of
references to performing the pre-season reporters would ensure that the gas the ozone season.
linearity checks at other times would be monitors’ response is linear throughout In view of these considerations, EPA
deleted, along with the requirement to the ozone season and would simplify is proposing to restrict the window of
keep the off-season daily calibration the regulation by reducing the number time in which pre-season RATAs may
error tests in a format suitable for of required linearity checks from three be performed. Proposed § 75.74(c)(2)(ii)
inspection. to two (and in some cases, one) per
Today’s proposed rule would also would require the RATAs to be done
season.
revise § 75.74(c)(2)(i)(D) by removing either in the first quarter of the year or
the conditional grace period provision 5. RATA Requirements for Ozone in the month of April. This restriction
and adding a cross-reference to Season Only Reporters would prohibit RATAs done in the
proposed § 75.74(c)(3)(ii)(E), which For OSO reporters, Part 75 requires, previous year from being used to
addresses data validation. If the April for quality-assurance purposes, that at validate data in the current ozone
linearity check is not completed prior to the start of each ozone season each season.
the start of the ozone season, data from required CEMS must be within the Section 75.74(c)(2)(ii)(F) would be
the monitor would be considered ‘‘window’’ of data validation of a revised to address data validation. The
invalid as of May 1, unless the current, non-expired RATA. Section proposed data validation rules for
conditional data validation procedures 75.74(c)(2)(ii) states that this RATAs would be similar to those
of § 75.20(b)(3) are applied. Proposed requirement can be met either by proposed for linearity checks, i.e., a
§ 75.74(c)(3)(ii)(E) would allow a performing a RATA in the pre-season period of conditional data validation
probationary calibration error test to be (between October 1 and April 30) or, in (720 operating hours) would be allowed
done, to begin a period of conditional some instances, by relying on the results when the pre-season RATA is not
data validation. Then, the linearity of a RATA done in the previous ozone completed by the April 30 deadline.
check would be done ‘‘hands-off’’ season. For example, if a RATA was Consistent with these revisions, today’s
within a 168 unit operating hour period performed inside the ozone season, in proposed rule would delete the data
following the calibration error test. If the the 3rd quarter of last year, the window validation and conditional grace period
linearity check is passed within the of data validation for the test would provisions in §§ 75.74(c)(2)(ii)(G) and
allotted time, the conditionally valid extend through the 3rd quarter of this (c)(2)(ii)(H) and would remove and
data would be considered quality- year, provided that the RATA results reserve §§ 75.74(c)(3)(vi), (vii), and
assured, back to the hour of the show that the CEMS qualifies for an (viii).
probationary calibration error test. If the ‘‘annual’’ RATA frequency. However, if Note that EPA is not modifying the
linearity check is failed, all data from a ‘‘semiannual’’ test frequency is provisions of § 75.74(c)(3)(xii), which
the monitor would be invalidated back obtained, the data validation window allows the results of required quality
to the beginning of the ozone season and would expire at the end of the first assurance tests that are completed early
would remain invalid until a linearity quarter of this year, and the RATA in the fourth quarter, within a window
check is passed. If the linearity check is could not be used to validate data in the of conditional data validation, to be
done after the 168-hour period expires, current ozone season. Therefore, a pre- submitted with the electronic data
data validation would be done season RATA would be required. report for the third quarter. This
according to § 75.20(b)(3)(viii), subject The rule further requires each CEMS provision provides sources with a ‘‘last
to the restrictions of § 75.74(c)(3)(xii). to be operated, calibrated and chance’’ opportunity to complete the
Today’s proposed rule would add a maintained in the time period extending required quality assurance tests before
new paragraph (F) to § 75.74(c)(3)(ii), from the completion of the RATA, the final ozone season reports for the
stating that a pre-season linearity check through April 30. This means that if the NOX Budget program are due.
6. Determining Peaking Status for Ozone by the stack operating time (hr) to before entering the common stack, the
Season Only Reporters convert it to heat input (mmBtu), and only way to measure the controlled Hg
EPA proposes to revise § 75.74(c)(11) then summing the hourly stack heat concentration from the individual units
to clarify that when peaking unit status input values. would be to operate them one at a time
for ozone season-only reporters is rather than concurrently. EPA believes
2. Low Mass Emission Alternative
determined, 3,672 hours (i.e., the that for many such configurations, this
Section 75.81(b) of Subpart I provides manner of unit operation is abnormal
number of hours in the ozone season)
an alternative (‘‘excepted’’) monitoring and potentially problematic. Therefore,
should be used instead of 8,760 hours
methodology for units with low Hg mass the revisions to § 75.81(e) would allow
in the capacity factor equation. This
emissions. To qualify to use this both the initial and ongoing low mass
clarification is supported by Question
methodology, emission testing is emission testing to be done at the
27.1 in the ‘‘Part 75 Emissions
required to demonstrate that the unit common stack in cases where the
Monitoring Policy Manual’’.
has the potential to emit no more than individual unit effluent gas streams are
7. Calculation of Ozone Season NOX 29 lb (464 ounces) of Hg per year. Once combined together upstream of a control
Mass Emissions—LME Units a unit qualifies, periodic retesting device that removes Hg before entering
Today’s rule would correct an (semiannual or annual, depending on the common stack. Owners or operators
organizational error in Subpart H of Part the emission level) is required to electing to use this option would be
75. Section 75.72(f), which describes demonstrate that the unit is actually required to perform the testing with all
ozone season NOX mass calculations for emitting less than 29 lb/yr of Hg. of the units that share the stack in
units using the low mass emission Section 75.81(e) allows the low mass operation, and the combined load
(LME) methodology under § 75.19, emission alternative to be used for during the testing would be ‘‘normal’’,
common stacks, provided that the units as defined in Section 6.5.2.1 of
would be removed, and its basic content
sharing the stack are tested individually Appendix A.
would be relocated to § 75.71(e). The
and each one qualifies as a low-emitter. Today’s proposed rule would also
LME provision in § 75.72 appears to
Though not explicitly stated in the rule, revise § 75.81(c)(1), to clarify the time
have been inadvertently placed in that
it is implied that the periodic retests for frame in which to perform the initial
section. The monitoring provisions of
common stack configurations would certification testing for the low mass
§ 75.72 apply to common and multiple
also have to be done at the unit level. emission option. The current rule
stack configurations, whereas § 75.71
EPA is reconsidering this approach, for simply states that this testing must be
addresses unit-level monitoring. LME is
two reasons: (1) With respect to the done ‘‘prior to the compliance date in
a unit-level monitoring methodology.
initial certification testing, it appears to § 75.80(b)’’, but does not specify how far
G. Subpart I (Hg Mass Emissions) be overly restrictive for at least one in advance of that date the testing may
particular configuration; and (2) the be done and still be considered
1. Heat Input Provisions for Common
Agency believes that for the retests it acceptable. Further, § 75.81(d)(1)
and Multiple Stacks
may be unnecessarily difficult and requires the test results to be submitted
Subpart I of Part 75 provides the basic costly to implement. as a certification application, no later
procedures for monitoring Hg mass Therefore, with one exception than 45 days after completing the
emissions and heat input from affected (discussed below), EPA is proposing to testing. And § 75.81(d)(4) requires
units under CAMR. However, due to an revise § 75.81(e) to require Hg testing of periodic Hg retesting to commence
apparent oversight, the heat input the individual units that share the within two or four ‘‘QA operating
monitoring provisions for certain common stack only for the initial quarters’’ after the quarter of the
monitoring configurations were demonstration that the units certification testing.
inadvertently omitted from the final individually qualify as low emitters. This approach to implementing the
rule. In particular, the heat input Once this has been satisfactorily low mass emission alternative should
methodology for common stacks shared demonstrated, the required semiannual work reasonably well, provided that the
by affected and non-affected units, and or annual retests could then be done at certification test date is close in time to
the methodology for multiple stack or the common stack, at a normal load the compliance date. However if there is
duct configurations are missing. Today’s level for the configuration. too long a gap between the certification
rule would add three new paragraphs, The proposed revisions to § 75.81(e) testing and the start of the program, it
(b)(3), (c)(4) and (d)(3) to § 75.82 to would also allow the initial low mass becomes problematic. For instance, if
correct this deficiency. emitter qualification for a group of the testing is done too early, the
For the common stack shared by identical units sharing a common stack requirement to submit a certification
affected and non-affected units, to be based on emission testing of a application within 45 days could result
proposed § 75.82(b)(3) would require subset of those units. To exercise this in applications being submitted long
the owner or operator to either measure option, the units would first have to before the regulatory agencies are ready
the total heat input rate at the common qualify as identical under to receive and process them. Also, the
stack and apportion it to the individual § 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(B). Then, the number of periodic retesting requirements of
units by load, according to § 75.16(e)(3), units required to be tested would be § 75.81(d)(4), which become active on
or to determine the heat input rate at the determined from Table LM–4 in § 75.19. the certification test date, could result in
individual units by installing a flow The proposed rule would allow one several Hg retests being done before the
monitor and a diluent monitor on the exception to the requirement to test the program begins. This is clearly contrary
duct leading from each unit to the individual units sharing a common to the purpose of the retests, which, like
common stack. For multiple stack stack, in order to demonstrate that the the periodic relative accuracy tests of
configurations, proposed §§ 75.82(c)(4) units qualify for low mass emitter CEMS, are intended to commence after
and (d)(3) would require the owner or status. In the case where the gas streams the compliance date, when Hg
operator to determine the hourly unit from the individual units are combined emissions reporting has begun. It also
heat input by measuring the hourly heat together and routed through emission raises questions about which default
input rate (mmBtu/hr) at each stack, controls that reduce the Hg emission rate to use for the initial
multiplying each stack heat input rate concentration (e.g., a wet scrubber) reporting. In view of these
considerations, EPA is proposing to data systems re-engineering effort. To standards as ‘‘EPA Protocol Gases’’,
revise § 75.81(c)(1), to require that the make Subpart I consistent with these although there will be no requirement
Hg testing for initial certification be proposed revisions and with the other for participants’ audited standards to
done no more than 1 year before the proposed changes in today’s rule, a meet an accuracy acceptance criterion.
compliance date. Sections 75.81(d)(2) number of minor adjustments would The costs of the audits will be borne by
and 75.81(d)(5) would also be revised, also be made to the text of the gas producers who elect to
to address the case where a retest may §§ 75.84(c)(3), (e)(1), (e)(2), and (f)(1). participate in the audits. Although it
be required before the compliance date may take several years to revise all of
(e.g., when § 75.81(d)(4) requires a retest H. Appendix A the EPA monitoring regulations in 40
within two QA operating quarters, 1. CO2 Span Values CFR Parts 58 and 60, today’s proposed
following a certification test that was rule would ensure that under Part 75,
EPA proposes to revise Section 2.1.3
done 9 to 12 months before the any specialty gas producers who do not
of Appendix A, to allow the use of CO2
compliance date). In such cases, the participate in the program will not have
spans less than 6.0 percent CO2 if a
default Hg emission rate used at the a price advantage (due to the lack of
technical justification is provided in the
beginning of the program would be the audit program costs) over those
hardcopy monitoring plan. This added
value that was obtained in the retest. producers who do participate. An EPA-
Finally, EPA proposes to amend flexibility in the CO2 span value mirrors
maintained web site will list the
§ 75.81(d)(4) to address the emission a similar provision in Section 2.1.3 for
participants and the audit results, which
testing requirements when the fuel O2 span values. will provide calibration gas users with
supply is changed. Revised § 75.81(d)(4) 2. Protocol Gas Audit Program detailed information about the quality of
would require additional Hg retesting EPA Protocol Gases.
EPA is responsible for implementing
within 720 unit operating hours, To clarify the calibration gas
air quality programs that rely on
following a change in the fuel supply. requirements in section 5.1 of appendix
accurate calibration gases. Under these
The results of this retest would be A to this part, a definition for ‘‘specialty
programs, calibration gases are used to
applied retrospectively, back to the time gas producer’’ has been added to section
of the fuel switch. Section 75.81(c)(1) calibrate EPA reference methods which, 72.2. EPA believes that most of the gas
would also be revised to require that the in turn, are used to perform stack tests standards and reference materials
fuel combusted during the initial or to calibrate installed pollutant identified in section 5.1 of appendix A
certification testing be from the same continuous emissions monitoring of this part are expensive and not used
source of supply as the fuel combusted systems (CEMs) that are used by in practice by Part 75 affected units.
when the program starts. The Agency regulated sources to report emissions to Therefore, today’s proposed rule also
believes these rule provisions are EPA. If the reference methods are low deletes several calibration gas options
necessary to ensure that the default Hg by 20%, then emissions may be and definitions, and consolidates the
concentration used for Part 75 reporting underreported by 20%. Calibration remaining calibration gas descriptions
is representative of the fuel being gases are also used to ensure that under section 5.1 of appendix A to this
combusted in the unit. However, note ambient air quality analyzers provide part.
that the proposed revisions only address accurate results. Accurate calibrations EPA is also requesting comment on
the emission testing and reporting gases are critical in helping to ensure the appropriate accuracy specification
requirements for one case, i.e., where that the Clean Air Act-mandated to apply to Hg cylinder gases and other
the source of supply for the primary fuel emission reductions are achieved. Hg calibration standards (e.g., gases
(assumed to be coal) changes. Cases Section 2.1.10 of ‘‘EPA Traceability from NIST-traceable generators).
where the coal supply does not change, Protocol for Assay and Certification of Currently, EPA requires that accuracy of
but the unit sometimes burns other Gaseous Calibration Standards’’ EPA Protocol gases be within 2 percent
types of fuel besides coal or co-fires (Protocol Procedures), September 1997 of the certified tag values.
mixtures of coal and other fuels, are not (EPA–600/R–97/121) states that EPA
will periodically assess the accuracy of 3. Requirements for Air Emission
addressed. In view of this, EPA also Testing Bodies
solicits comments and suggestions on calibration gases and publish the
how to apply the Hg low mass emitter results. Between 1978 and 1996, EPA Since the inception of the Acid Rain
option in these situations (i.e., what conducted several performance audits of Program, field audits of Part 75-affected
emission testing and reporting calibration gases from various facilities have brought to EPA’s
requirements might be appropriate). manufacturers. These audits had two attention a number of improperly-
goals, to provide a quality check for gas performed RATAs and other QA/QC
3. Harmonization of Subpart I With vendors and to connect users with gas tests. When the proper test procedures
Other Proposed Rule Revisions vendors. One notable result in the most are not followed, this can adversely
Subpart I of Part 75 also contains a recent five consecutive years of audits is affect the quality of the emissions data,
recordkeeping and reporting section a steady, significant reduction in failure and, in some cases, may call into
(§ 75.84). Section 75.84 contains a few rate of the calibration gases, from about question a unit’s compliance with the
stand-alone provisions, but for the most 27% in 1992 down to 5% in 1996. In requirement to hold allowances
part, it cross-references the primary 2003, EPA conducted a ‘‘surprise’’ audit covering its emissions. In view of this,
monitoring plan, recordkeeping, of 14 national specialty gas producers today’s proposed rule would revise
notification and reporting sections of and found that the failure rate had risen Section 6.1 of Appendix A to require all
the rule (i.e., §§ 75.53, 75.57 through to 11%. individuals who perform the emission
75.59, 75.61, and 75.64) and other Today’s proposed rule would require tests and CEMS performance
sections of Subpart I. that EPA Protocol Gases being used for evaluations required by Part 75 to
As discussed in detail in Section E of 40 CFR Part 75 purposes be obtained demonstrate conformance with ASTM
this preamble, today’s rule would make from those specialty gas producers who D7036–04 ‘‘Standard Practice for
substantial revisions to the monitoring participate in the audit program. Under Competence of Air Emission Testing
plan, recordkeeping and reporting the proposed rule, only audit Bodies’’. ASTM D7036–04 specifies the
sections of Part 75, in support of EPA’s participants may market these gas general requirements for demonstrating
that an air emission testing body (AETB) or to all of the linearity check data when the full-scale range of the
is competent to perform emission tests requirements for a monitoring system. monitor is exceeded. For single-range
of stationary sources. ASTM D7036–04 The misunderstanding appears to center applications, a value of 200 percent of
covers testing and calibration performed around two sentences in Section 6.2. the maximum potential concentration
using standard methods, non-standard The first sentence states that (MPC) must be reported when a full-
methods and methods developed by the ‘‘Notwithstanding these requirements, if scale exceedance occurs. For dual range
AETB. the SO2 or NOX span value for a applications, if the low range is
Proposed Section 6.1.2 of Appendix A particular range is ≤ 30 ppm, that range exceeded, no special reporting is
and revisions to Section 2.1 of is exempted from the linearity test necessary, provided that the high range
Appendix E and to Section 1 of requirements of this part.’’ Since the is ‘‘available and not out-of-control or
Appendix B would make it clear that phrase ‘‘of this part’’ refers to Part 75, out-of-service for any reason’’. However,
this requirement applies only to AETBs this seems to exempt ranges of 30 ppm if the high range is ‘‘not able to provide
that perform RATAs, NOX emission or less from all Part 75 linearity quality-assured data’’ during the low-
tests of Appendix E and LME units, or requirements, including initial range exceedance, then the MPC must
Hg emission tests of low-emitting units. certification and ongoing QA. However, be reported.
It would not be applicable to the daily the second sentence states that ‘‘For EPA believes that for dual range
operation, daily QA/QC (daily units using emission controls and other applications, the two phrases used to
calibration error check, daily flow units using both a high and a low span, describe the QA status of the high range
interference check, etc.), weekly QA/QC perform a linearity check on both the during low-scale exceedances, i.e.,
(i.e., Hg system integrity checks), low- and high-scales for initial ‘‘available and not out-of-control or out-
quarterly QA/QC (linearity checks, etc.), certification.’’ Thus, for dual span of-service for any reason’’ and ‘‘not able
and routine maintenance of the CEMS. applications, this statement appears to to provide quality assured data’’, are too
ASTM D7036–04 would be require linearity checks of both general and do not adequately address
incorporated by reference in measurement scales for initial the possible scenarios associated with
§ 75.6(a)(45), and a definition of ‘‘Air certification regardless of the span dual range monitoring. Today’s rule
Emission Testing Body’’ would be values, which does not harmonize with would revise these rule texts by defining
added to § 72.2. the 30 ppm exemption. the QA status of the high range in terms
4. Linearity Requirements for Dual-Span EPA believes that the key to of its most recent calibration error and
Applications understanding and reconciling these linearity checks. Provided that both of
rule texts is the chronological order of
Section 6.2 in Appendix A and these QA tests are still ‘‘active’’, i.e.,
the two sentences. The second sentence
Section 2.2 in Appendix B require the their windows of data validation have
is from the original 1993 rule and the
owner or operator of affected units with not expired, the high range would be
first sentence was added in 1999.
installed gas monitors to perform considered in-control and able to
Therefore, the 30 ppm linearity check
periodic linearity checks of the provide quality-assured data. However
exemption in the first sentence takes
monitors. The basic linearity check if either of the tests has expired, data
precedence over the low scale linearity
requirements are to perform the test for recorded on the high range would be
check requirement of the second, and
initial certification and then, for considered invalid until the expired test
there is no actual contradiction.
ongoing quality assurance (QA), to was repeated and passed. The MPC
However, to eliminate any doubt as to
repeat the test quarterly. In the original the Agency’s intended meaning, today’s would have to be reported until the
Part 75 regulations (published on rule would revise Section 6.2 of expired high-range test is redone or
January 11, 1993), there were no Appendix A to make it clear that the 30 until the data return to the low scale.
exceptions to these requirements. ppm linearity exemption: (1) Is range- These revisions would clarify that
However, in May 1999, EPA revised specific; (2) covers both initial when the low range is up-to-date on its
the linearity check provisions of Part 75 certification and ongoing QA; (3) does QA tests but the high range is not, the
as follows. First, Section 6.2 of not remove the requirement to perform QA statuses of the two ranges are
Appendix A was revised to exempt SO2 linearity checks of the high range (if > evaluated separately and may be
and NOX span values of 30 ppm or less 30 ppm) for dual span applications; and different. However, as explained in
from performing linearity checks. (4) does not take away the linearity greater detail in Section II.I.3, below, the
Second, revisions to Section 2.2 of check requirements for the diluent QA statuses of the low and high ranges
Appendix B reduced the ongoing monitor component of a NOX-diluent are not necessarily independent when a
linearity check requirement from once monitoring system. calibration error test or a linearity check
per calendar quarter to once every ‘‘QA on one of the ranges is failed.
operating quarter’’ (i.e., a calendar 5. Dual Span Applications—Data
Validation 6. Cycle Time Test—Stability Criteria
quarter in which the unit operates for at
least 168 hours). Today’s proposed rule would revise The cycle time test described in
Since the May 1999 revisions became Sections 2.1.1.5 (b)(2) and 2.1.2.5(b)(2) Section 6.4 of Appendix A is required
effective, the regulated sources appear of Appendix A to clarify the for the initial certification and
to have understood the ‘‘QA operating relationship between the quality- recertification of gas monitoring
quarter’’ concept in Section 2.2 of assured (QA) status of the low and high systems, and occasionally as a
Appendix B, but there has been some ranges of a gas monitor in a dual-span diagnostic test. The ‘‘upscale’’ portion of
confusion about the meaning of the application. The changes would be the test consists of injecting a zero-level
linearity exemption in Appendix A. consistent with the proposed revisions calibration gas, allowing the reading to
Some have questioned whether the to Appendix B (see Section II.I.3, stabilize, recording it, and then stopping
linearity exemption applies only to below). the calibration gas flow, waiting until a
ongoing QA or whether it applies also In the current rule, Sections stable reading of the source emissions is
to initial certification. Others have 2.1.1.5(b)(2) and 2.1.2.5(b)(2) of obtained, and recording it. The
asked whether the exemption applies Appendix A provide instructions for ‘‘downscale’’ portion of the test is
only to a particular measurement range reporting SO2 and NOX concentration performed in like manner, except that a
high-level calibration gas is used instead measurement error is provided. Today’s calibration error procedures in section
of the zero-level gas. proposed rule would restructure 6.3.1 of Appendix A, to require that
Section 6.4 currently specifies criteria paragraph (3) of Section 3.2 (as when moisture is added to the Hg
for determining when a stable reading described in the next paragraph) and calibration gas, the moisture content of
has been obtained. The reading is add the necessary mathematical the gas must be accounted for if the Hg
considered stable if it changes by less procedure. monitor measures on a dry basis. The
than 2.0 percent of the span value for 2 EPA is also proposing to make the proposed revisions would also require
minutes or less than 6.0 percent from linearity and system integrity check the calibration gas concentration to be
the average concentration over 6 specifications for Hg monitors the same. converted to a dry basis for purposes of
minutes. These criteria are reasonable The principal linearity error the calibration error calculations.
when the source effluent concentrations specification in Section 3.2(3)(i) is Parallel language would be added to
are moderate or high. However, when currently 10.0 percent of the reference Section 6.2 of Appendix A, in a new
concentrations are very low, the criteria gas tag value at each calibration paragraph ‘‘(h)’’, to address this issue for
are quite stringent and can be very concentration, when calculated the linearity checks and system integrity
difficult to meet. For example, if the according to Equation A–4. The checks of Hg monitors. The Agency
span value of a NOX analyzer is 10 ppm alternative specification in Section believes that adoption of these proposed
and the average measured source 3.2(3)(ii) allows an absolute difference revisions will prevent many ‘‘false
emissions are 3 ppm, the source of up to 1.0 µg/m3 between the average positive’’ failures of Hg monitor
emissions would have to remain reference gas and monitor values at each calibration error tests, linearity checks,
constant within about 0.2 ppm for the calibration gas level. Today’s proposed and system integrity checks.
specified amount of time to meet the rule would replace the principal
stability criteria. linearity error specification with a 9. Correction of Cross-References
In recent years, hundreds of new specification of 5.0 percent of the span Today’s proposed rule would correct
combustion turbines (CTs) have been value, and would lower the alternative a number of cross-references in
built. The vast majority are subject to specification to 0.6 µg/m3. Further, the Appendix A, Sections 6.2(g), 6.5.6(b)(3)
Part 75, are equipped with NOX same 0.6 µg/m3 alternative specification and 6.5.6.3. Regarding the system
monitoring systems, and have NOX would be added to the rule for the integrity checks of Hg monitors, Section
permit limits less than 10 ppm. system integrity check. 6.2(g) of Appendix A incorrectly only
Therefore, the 0.2 ppm cycle time The reason for making these changes refers to Section 2.6 of Appendix B,
stability criterion in the example above is that nearly all Hg monitors are which only describes weekly, single-
is realistic and applies to many of these equipped with a converter and measure level system integrity checks. The
new CTs. To provide a measure of relief the total vapor phase Hg (i.e., oxidized proposed revisions would also refer to
for these low-emitting sources, today’s plus elemental) as elemental Hg. Sections 2.1.1 and 2.2.1 of Appendix B,
rule would add alternative stability Therefore, the performance specification which describe the 3-level system
criteria to Section 6.4 of Appendix A. for the linearity check, which is done integrity checks. Also, the references in
By the alternative criteria, an SO2 or with elemental Hg, should be at least as Sections 6.5.6(b)(3) and 6.5.6.3 of
NOX reading would be considered stable stringent as the performance for the Appendix A to Section 3.2 of 40 CFR
if it changed by no more than 0.5 ppm system integrity check, which is done Part 60, Appendix B, Performance
for 2 minutes or, for a diluent monitor, with oxidized Hg. Because the current Specification No. 2 (PS2) are incorrect.
if it changed by no more than 0.2% CO2 linearity specifications are less stringent The correct section number in PS2 is
or O2 for 2 minutes. EPA believes these than the specification for the system 8.1.3, not 3.2.
alternative stability criteria are needed integrity check, EPA proposes to revise
to ensure that minor temporal variations and restructure paragraph (3) in Section I. Appendix B
in the concentration of the source 3.2 of Appendix A, to make the 1. 3-Load Flow RATA Frequency and
effluent do not cause testers to performance specifications the same for RATA Grace Period
overestimate the amount of time it takes linearity checks and system integrity
to achieve stable readings, resulting in checks of Part 75 Hg monitors (this On May 26, 1999, EPA revised
‘‘false positive’’ failures of the cycle includes both the 3-level and single- Appendix B of Part 75, to reduce the
time test. level system integrity checks). The required frequency of 3-load flow
alternative performance specification is RATAs from annually to ‘‘at least once
7. System Integrity and Linearity Checks
deemed necessary for low (10 µg/m3 Hg every 5 consecutive calendar years’’.
of Hg CEMS However, as written, the rule actually
span values, where the principal
Subpart I of Part 75 includes specification of 5.0% of span may be allows more than five years (20 calendar
certification test procedures and overly stringent. quarters) to elapse between 3-load flow
performance specifications for Hg RATAs. For instance, if a 3-load flow
CEMS. The required certification tests 8. Correction of Hg Calibration Gas RATA was performed in the1st quarter
for a Hg CEMS include a 3-level system Concentrations for Moisture of 2001 and the next one is done in the
integrity check, using a NIST-traceable When calibration error tests and 4th quarter of 2006, the rule
source of oxidized Hg and a 3-level linearity checks of SO2, NOX, and requirement would be met, but there
linearity check, using elemental Hg diluent gas monitors are performed, would be 23 calendar quarters between
standards. The performance EPA protocol gases are used. The the successive tests.
specification for the system integrity protocol gases are essentially moisture- In light of this, EPA is proposing to
check, which is found in paragraph free. However, when mercury monitors revise Section 2.3.1.3(c)(4) of Appendix
(3)(iii) of Appendix A, Section 3.2, are calibrated, moisture may be added to B, to require 3-load flow RATAs to be
states that the system measurement the calibration gas. This creates a done at least once every 20 calendar
error must not exceed 5.0 percent of the potential source of error in the quarters. This is consistent with the
span value at any of the three calculations, if the Hg monitoring other 5-year testing requirements in Part
calibration gas levels. However no system measures on a dry basis. In view 75, i.e., for Appendix E and LME units.
explanation of how to calculate the of this, EPA proposes to revise the It is also consistent with the maximum
allowable interval between successive base load unit is on a 2nd quarter RATA EPA believes that the proposed
accuracy tests of Appendix D fuel schedule and a grace period RATA is revisions to Section 2.3.3 of Appendix
flowmeters. done in the 3rd quarter. If annual B would greatly simplify
EPA is also proposing to revise the frequency is obtained, the deadline for implementation of the grace period
RATA grace period provisions in the next RATA is reckoned from the 2nd provisions and would enhance the
Section 2.3.3. In recent years many new quarter, when the RATA was due, rather Agency’s ability to track RATA
combustion turbines have been built than the 3rd quarter when the grace deadlines and to provide meaningful
and most of them have NOX-diluent period test was actually done. feedback to the affected sources.
CEMS. A great number of these turbines Therefore, the next RATA would be
have been operated infrequently due to 2. RATA Requirement for Shared
required in the 2nd quarter of the Components
the high price of natural gas. Because of following year, i.e., ‘‘back on schedule’’.
this, a unit may go for a very long period However, for infrequently operated Today’s proposed rule would amend
of time without performing a RATA of combustion turbines, the grace period paragraph (g) in section 2.3.2 of
the NOX monitoring system because the sometimes spans across many calendar Appendix B to specify the consequences
unit seldom, if ever, has a ‘‘QA quarters, which effectively eliminates of a failed RATA, in the case where a
operating quarter’’ (so the extended the possibility of establishing a particular NOX pollutant concentration
deadline for the next RATA is often 8 meaningful relationship between the monitor is a component of both a NOX
calendar quarters from the previous original RATA due date and the concentration monitoring system and a
test), and then it may be several quarters deadline for the next test. NOX-diluent monitoring system. An
or even years before the allowable 720 In view of these considerations, EPA example would be a coal-fired source
operating hour grace period expires. is proposing a simplified methodology that is subject to both the Acid Rain and
The grace period provisions in for determining RATA deadlines that NOX Budget Programs, for which the
Section 2.3.3 were proposed in 1998 will work for both base load units and owner or operator elects to use a NOX
and promulgated in May 1999, before combustion turbines that seldom concentration system to quantify NOX
the influx of new, infrequently-operated operate. The deadline for the next mass emissions, while using the NOX-
combustion turbines. Consequently, diluent system to satisfy the Acid Rain
RATA following a grace period test
these rule provisions are often very Program requirement to monitor and
would be expressed as a certain number
difficult to track and apply to such report NOX emission rate in lb/mmBtu.
of QA operating quarters after the
units. Therefore, EPA proposes to In such cases, if the NOX concentration
quarter of the grace period RATA, rather
modify the grace period methodology so system RATA is failed, both the NOX
than referring back to the quarter in
that it is more understandable and user- concentration monitoring system and
which the RATA was originally due
friendly, particularly in cases where a the associated NOX-diluent monitoring
(which could have been several quarters
unit seldom operates. system would be considered out-of-
Today’s proposal would move the in the past).
control. Successful RATAs of both
requirements for determining the The deadline for the next RATA
monitoring systems would be required
deadline for the next RATA after a grace would be determined by first
to get them back in-control.
period test from paragraph (c) of Section establishing whether the grace period
2.3.3 to a new paragraph (d). Paragraph RATA qualifies for the standard 3. AETB Requirements
(c) currently addresses both RATA (semiannual) RATA frequency or the Appendix B would be further revised
deadlines and the data validation reduced (annual) frequency. If the grace by adding a new Section, 1.1.4, to
requirements for the case where a RATA period RATA does not qualify for the require that an Air Emissions Testing
is not completed by the end of the 720 annual frequency, the deadline for the Body (AETB) that performs emission
operating hour grace period. Creating a next RATA would be simply set at two testing or RATAs for on-going quality-
new paragraph (d) would make Section QA operating quarters after the quarter assurance under Part 75 must conform
2.3.3 clearer, by treating the RATA of the grace period test. If the RATA to ASTM D7036–04.
deadline requirement as a distinct and qualifies for the annual frequency then
separate issue. the deadline for the next RATA would 4. Calibration Error Tests and Linearity
Proposed paragraph (d) would change be set at three QA operating quarters Checks—Dual Range Applications
the methodology for determining RATA after the quarter of the grace period test. Today’s rule would revise Sections
deadlines without changing the end There would be one exception to these 2.1.1, 2.1.1.2, 2.1.5.1 and 2.2.3(e) of
result. The intent of Section 2.3.3 has rules. Regardless of the number of QA Appendix B, to clarify the data
always been for the source to return to operating quarters that have elapsed validation requirements for daily
its original RATA schedule following a following the grace period test, the calibration error tests and linearity
grace period test, in order to prevent the interval between a grace period RATA checks of gas monitors when two span
grace period provisions from being and the deadline for the next required values and two measurement ranges are
abused. For instance, if the source did RATA could be no greater than eight required for a particular parameter (e.g.,
not return to its original RATA calendar quarters. This provision is SO2 or NOX).
schedule, the grace period could be consistent with Section 2.3.1.1(a) of Section 2.1.1 of Appendix B would be
used to extend the interval between Appendix B. revised to require that sufficient
successive annual RATAs from four QA Finally, EPA is proposing to amend calibration error tests be performed on
operating quarters to five. paragraph (c) of Section 2.3.3, to clarify the low and high monitor ranges to
The current language in Section 2.3.3 that when a RATA is performed after validate the data recorded on each
works well enough for base load units the expiration of a grace period, the range. The provisions of Section 2.1.5 of
that operate most of the time. For these ‘‘clock’’ is reset, and the next RATA Appendix B would be used to determine
units, the grace period almost invariably would simply be due in two QA whether ‘‘sufficient’’ calibration error
begins and ends within one calendar operating quarters (for semiannual tests have been done. A new paragraph
quarter of the RATA deadline, making it frequency) or four QA operating (3) would also be added to Section
easy to return to the original RATA quarters (for annual frequency), not to 2.1.5.1 of Appendix B to clarify how the
schedule. For instance, suppose that a exceed eight calendar quarters. QA status of the low and high ranges is
determined when: (a) A calibration error The Agency believes that main reason rule would add data validation rules for
test on one of the ranges is failed; or (b) why there have been so many questions the weekly system integrity check to
the most recent calibration error test of about the use of off-line calibration error Section 2.6 of Appendix B. If the test is
one of the ranges has expired. In the tests is that paragraph (2) of Section failed, it would trigger an out-of-control
case where separate analyzers are used 2.1.1.2 is not clear. Paragraph (2) states period until a subsequent system
for the two ranges, a failed or expired that ‘‘a successful on-line calibration integrity check is passed. Also, if the
calibration error test on one of the error test of the monitoring system must test is not performed within 168 unit
ranges would not affect the QA status of be completed no later than 26 unit operating hours of the previous
the other range. For a dual-range operating hours after each off-line successful system integrity check, data
analyzer (i.e., a single analyzer with two calibration error test used for data from the CEMS would become invalid,
scales), a failed calibration error test on validation.’’ This statement can be starting with the 169th unit operating
either range would result in an out-of- easily misinterpreted. It could be hour and continuing until a system
control period, and data from the understood to mean that a single off-line integrity check is passed.
monitor would remain invalid until calibration error test can be used to Today’s rule would also correct a
corrective actions are taken, followed by validate 26 unit operating hours of data, typographical error in Section 2.6 of
successful ‘‘hands-off’’ calibrations of regardless of the number of clock hours Appendix B. The performance
both ranges. However, if the most recent it takes to accumulate the 26 unit specification for the weekly system
calibration error test on one range of a operating hours. However, this is not integrity check is incorrectly referenced
dual-range analyzer was successful, but the intended meaning because it would in the current rule as Section 3.2 (c)(3)
its data validation window has expired, directly contradict the statement, in of Appendix A. The correct citation is
this would have no effect on the QA Section 2.1.5 of Appendix B, that the Appendix A, Section 3.2, paragraph
status of the other range. window of data validation from a (3)(iii).
In the current rule, Section 2.2.3(e) in passed calibration error test extends for
Appendix B states that when linearity only 26 clock hours. 7. Correction of Hg Units of Measure—
checks are performed on both scales of To clarify EPA’s intent regarding the Figure 2
a dual-range analyzer, an out-of-control use of off-line calibration error tests to Today’s rule would correct a minor
period occurs if either of the two validate CEM data, today’s rule would error in the units of measure for Hg
linearity checks is failed or aborted due revise Sections 2.1.1.2 and 2.1.5.1 of concentration in Figure 2 of Appendix
to a problem with the monitor. Appendix B. First, paragraph (2) in B. The units of micrograms per dry
However, it is not clear whether only Section 2.1.1.2 would be revised to state standard cubic meter (µg/dscm) would
one range or both ranges must be that sources may make limited use of be changed to micrograms per standard
retested to get back in-control. Today’s off-line calibrations if the off-line cubic meter (µg/scm). This change is
rule would revise Section 2.2.3(e) to calibration demonstration has been necessary because not all Hg monitoring
require ‘‘hands-off’’ linearity checks of performed and passed. Revised systems measure Hg concentration on a
both ranges of a dual-range analyzer paragraph (2) of Section 2.1.5.1 would dry basis.
whenever a linearity check on either explain what ‘‘limited use’’ of off-line
range is failed or aborted (unless, of calibrations means. Off-line calibrations J. Appendix D
course, a particular range is exempted could be used to validate up to 26 1. Update of Incorporation by Reference
from linearity checks under Section 6.2 consecutive unit operating hours of data
of Appendix A). before an on-line test is required. Each As discussed in Section II.B.1of this
individual off-line calibration would be preamble, EPA proposes to update the
5. Off-Line Calibration Error Tests list of test methods, sampling and
valid only for 26 clock hours, and if the
Part 75 requires calibration error tests sequence of consecutive operating hours analysis procedures, and other items
of all CEMS to be done while the unit validated by off-line calibrations is that are incorporated by reference in
is combusting fuel (see Appendix B, broken before reaching the 26th Part 75. As such, this proposal also
Section 2.1.1 and Appendix A, Sections consecutive unit operating hour, data includes the necessary updates to the
6.3.1 and 6.3.2). However, Section from the monitor would become invalid references in Appendix D.
2.1.1.2 of Appendix B allows the owner until an on-line calibration is performed EPA is also proposing to add to
or operator to make limited use of off- and passed. The sequence of Section 2.1.5.1 of Appendix D, the
line calibration error tests to validate consecutive valid hours would be American Petroleum Institute’s (API)
data if an off-line calibration considered broken whenever a unit Manual of Petroleum Measurement
demonstration test is performed and operating hour is not contained within Standards Chapter 22—Testing Protocol:
passed. If the off-line calibration error the 26 clock hour data validation Section 2—Differential Pressure Flow
demonstration is successful, then off- window of a passed off-line calibration Measurement Devices (First Edition,
line calibrations may be used to validate error test. August 2005) as a new standard
up to 26 unit operating hours of data procedure for verifying flowmeter
before an on-line calibration error test is 6. Weekly System Integrity Check—Data accuracy.
required. Validation
The off-line calibration provisions in For a Hg CEMS that is equipped with 2. Pipeline Natural Gas—Method of
Appendix B have not been well- a converter and that uses elemental Hg Qualification and Monthly GCV Values
understood by many affected sources. for daily calibrations, Section 2.6 of Part For a unit which combusts a fuel that
Through the years, EPA has received 75, Appendix B requires a weekly meets the definition of ‘‘pipeline natural
numerous requests for a more detailed system integrity check, using a NIST- gas’’ (PNG) in § 72.2, Section 2.3.1.1 of
explanation and/or examples of how to traceable source of oxidized Hg. This Appendix D allows the owner or
apply these rule provisions. Today’s ‘‘weekly’’ test is required once every 168 operator to estimate the unit’s SO2 mass
rule would revise Sections 2.1.1.2 and unit operating hours. However, Section emissions using a default SO2 emission
2.1.5.1 of Appendix B to clarify the data 2.6 does not explain the consequences rate of 0.0006 lb/mmBtu. To qualify to
validation rules for off-line calibration of either failing the test or failing to use this SO2 emission rate, the owner or
error tests. perform the test on schedule. Today’s operator must document in the
monitoring plan for the unit that the limit. To correct this inequitable Section 2.2 of Appendix D requires the
natural gas has a total sulfur content of situation, today’s rule would revise owner or operator to perform periodic
0.5 grains per 100 standard cubic foot or Sections 2.3.1.4(a)(2) and (e) of sampling of the sulfur content, gross
less. Section 2.3.1.4 describes three Appendix D. calorific value and (if necessary) density
ways to initially demonstrate that the For the initial documentation that the of the oil. There are four basic oil
gas meets this total sulfur requirement: gas meets the 0.5 gr/100 scf total sulfur sampling options described in Section
(1) Based on the gas quality limit, proposed Section 2.3.1.4(a)(2) 2.2: (a) Daily sampling; (b) flow
characteristics specified in a purchase would allow sources whose fuel proportional sampling (composite
contract, tariff sheet, or pipeline suppliers have provided them with at sample, up to 7 days); (c) sampling from
transportation contract; or (2) based on least 100 daily (or more frequent) total a unit’s storage tank after each addition
historical fuel sampling data from the sulfur samples from the previous 12 of oil to the tank; and (d) sampling of
previous 12 months; or (3) based on at months to reduce the data to monthly each fuel lot (either upon receipt of the
least one representative sample of the averages. If all monthly averages meet lot or sampling from supplier’s storage
gas, if the requirements of (1) or (2) the 0.5 gr/100 scf limit, the fuel would tank prior to delivery). Regardless of
cannot be met. When fuel sampling data qualify as pipeline natural gas, and the which sampling option is selected,
are used to qualify, each individual source could use the 0.0006 lb/mmBtu Section 2.2.5 of Appendix D requires
sample result must meet the total sulfur default SO2 emission rate. Alternatively, each oil sample to be split and a portion
limit. Once a fuel has qualified as if at least 98 percent of the 100 (or more) (at least 200 cc) of it to be maintained
pipeline natural gas, Section 2.3.1.4(e) samples have a total sulfur content of for at least 90 days after the end of the
of Appendix D requires annual 0.5 gr/100 scf or less, the fuel would allowance accounting period.
sampling of the total sulfur content to qualify as pipeline natural gas. The requirement to split and maintain
demonstrate that the fuel still meets the The revisions to Section 2.3.1.4(e) a portion of each oil sample has been in
definition of PNG. At least one sample would allow this same calculation Appendix D since it was first
per year must be taken and if multiple methodology to be used for the annual promulgated on January 11, 1993. At
samples are taken, each one must meet total sulfur sampling requirement. That that time, on-site fuel oil sampling was
the 0.5 gr/100 scf total sulfur limit. is, each year, if at least 100 total sulfur required on every day that the unit
The criteria for documenting the total samples from the past 12 months are combusted oil. Later, on May 17, 1995,
sulfur content of PNG were promulgated provided by the fuel supplier, the data an option to sample each shipment
on June 12, 2002, and the annual total could either be reduced to monthly upon delivery was added for diesel fuel.
sulfur requirement became effective on averages, or the percentage of the Then, on May 26, 1999, the four basic
January 1, 2003. Since then, EPA has samples that meet the 0.5 gr/100 scf oil sampling options in the current rule
learned that many suppliers of natural limit could be determined. were put in place. However, the
gas regularly sample the total sulfur EPA is also proposing to clarify the
requirement to split and maintain a
content of the gas (in many cases, daily) GCV sampling requirements for pipeline
portion of each sample has remained
and will provide that data to their natural gas in Section 2.3.4.1 of
unchanged through all of these
customers upon request. Sources Appendix D. The current rule requires
rulemakings.
desiring to use this data to meet the monthly GCV sampling for PNG.
EPA believes that the requirement to
initial or ongoing total sulfur sampling However, Section 2.3.4.1 refers only to
split and maintain oil samples should
requirements of Appendix D have the ‘‘monthly sample’’ (singular),
only apply to samples that are taken at
approached EPA, asking whether the gas whereas affected sources may collect
the affected facility. Today’s rule would
would be disqualified from using the and analyze multiple GCV samples each
revise Section 2.2.5 of Appendix D to
0.0006 lb/mmBtu SO2 emission rate if month, or may receive the results of
limit this requirement to samples that
the total sulfur content of one of these multiple GCV samples from the fuel
are taken on-site. Therefore, sources
daily samples exceeded 0.5 gr/100 scf. supplier each month. In view of this,
using the fourth sampling option in
Thus far, the Agency has addressed revised Section 2.3.4.1 would require
Section 2.2 of Appendix D, i.e.,
these requests on a case-by-case basis. that a monthly average GCV value be
sampling from each fuel lot, would no
Generally, in cases where the number of used for Part 75 reporting, for any
longer be required to split and maintain
total sulfur samples far exceeds the month in which multiple samples are
oil samples in the case where the
requirements of Appendix D, EPA has taken and analyzed. To implement this
samples are taken off-site, from the fuel
allowed the sources to reduce the data provision, whenever Section 2.3.7(c) of
supplier’s storage container.
to monthly averages. Then, if all of the Appendix D requires the results of a
monthly averages are below the 0.5 gr/ monthly GCV sample to be applied K. Appendix E
100 scf , the fuel would be allowed to ‘‘starting from the date on which the
1. AETB Requirements
continue using the 0.0006 lb/mmBtu sample was taken’’, the owner or
default SO2 emission rate. operator would apply the monthly EPA proposes to revise Section 2.1 of
EPA believes that the current rule average GCV value, starting from the Appendix E to require that any Air
requirements for documenting the sulfur latest date of any of the individual GCV Emissions Testing Body (AETB)
content of pipeline natural gas are too samples used to calculate the monthly performing emission measurements to
restrictive and need to be revised. For average. EPA believes that monthly develop an Appendix E correlation
example, a source that takes only one or averaging of the available GCV samples curve or to derive a default emission
perhaps a handful of sulfur samples will ensure that representative robust rate for an LME unit, would have to
each year is allowed to use the 0.0006 GCV values are used in the Appendix D conform to ASTM D7036–04.
lb/mmBtu default emission rate without heat input calculations. 2. Reporting Data When the Correlation
question if all samples have ≤ 0.5 gr/100

scf of total sulfur. However, a source 3. Requirement To Split Oil Samples Curve Expires
with hundreds of total sulfur sample For affected units that combust fuel For oil and gas-fired peaking units
results could possibly be disqualified oil and use the Appendix D ‘‘excepted’’ using the Appendix E ‘‘excepted’’
from using the default emission rate if methodology to quantify SO2 mass methodology to estimate NOX
one sample exceeded the 0.5 gr/100 scf emissions and/or unit heat input, emissions, the owner or operator is
required, for each fuel type, to perform Today’s proposed rule seeks to calculate NOX mass emissions under
four-load emission testing for initial harmonize the reporting formats by Subpart H of Part 75. These equations
certification in order to develop a requiring the reporting of hourly NOX are represented in the EDR reporting
correlation curve of NOX emission rate mass emission rate (lb/hr) instead of instructions, as Equations N–1 and N–
versus heat input rate. Each correlation hourly NOX mass emission (lb), when 2 respectively. EPA believes that it is
curve is programmed into the data the source transition from the current appropriate to add these equations to
acquisition and handling system EDR reporting format to the XML–EDR the rule at this time.
(DAHS), and retesting is required every reporting format. As previously
five years (20 calendar quarters) to discussed, sources may use either the 2. Use of the Diluent Cap
develop a new curve. existing EDR format or the new XML–
EDR reporting format in 2008, but will Today’s proposed rule would restrict
If the 20 calendar quarter test the use of the diluent cap to NOX
deadline passes without a retest having be required to use the new XML-
reporting format, only, in 2009. emission rate calculations. The original
been performed, the previous purpose for implementing the diluent
Requiring the reporting of hourly NOX
correlation curve expires and is no cap was to keep calculated NOX
mass emission rate (lb/hr) necessitates
longer valid. Ordinarily, when data from emission rates from approaching
the modification of Equations F–24, and
a Part 75 monitoring system become infinity during periods of unit startup
F–27 in Appendix F of Part 75 and the
invalid, missing data substitution and shutdown, where the diluent gas
removal of Equation F–26. However,
procedures are applied. Section 2.5 of (CO2 or O2) concentration is close to the
since the current EDR reporting format
Appendix E contains missing data
will continue to be supported through level in the ambient air. However, the
provisions that address the following
2008, EPA must retain these equations current rule allows the diluent cap to be
situations: (a) When the monitored QA
in the rule until the transition to XML– used for heat input rate calculations,
parameters are unavailable or invalid; EDR is complete. Therefore, EPA is
(b) when the measured heat input rate CO2 mass emission calculations, and
proposing to revise Section 8 of calculation of hourly CO2 concentration
is higher than the highest heat input rate Appendix F, by adding Equation F–24a
on the correlation curve; (c) when NOX from measured O2 concentrations, in
for the reporting of hourly NOX mass addition to being used for NOX emission
emission controls are either not emission rate (lb/hr). Equation F–24a is
operating or not documented to be rate. Sources are also allowed to use the
a modified version of F–24, in which cap value for some of these calculations
working properly; and (d) when the operating time variable is removed.
emergency fuel is burned. and not others. This greatly complicates
The use of Equation F–24a would be the data collection process. EPA has
Conspicuously absent from Section mandatory in the new XML–EDR also found that using the diluent cap for
2.5 is a missing data procedure to follow format. Likewise, Equation F–27a would
when a correlation curve expires. To other parameters besides NOX emission
be added, which is a modified form of
address this deficiency, today’s rule rate always leads to over-reporting of
Equation F–27 that includes the
would add a new Section, 2.5.2.4, to operating time variable. In the XML– these parameters, which is clearly
Appendix E, requiring the fuel-specific EDR format, cumulative NOX mass contrary to the intended purpose of the
maximum potential NOX emission rate emissions would be calculated using diluent cap. Therefore, today’s proposed
(MER) to be reported when a baseline Equation F–27a. rule would remove all of the references
correlation curve expires. The MER Since both EDR reporting formats in Sections 4 and 5 of Appendix F
would continue to be reported until a currently in use (i.e., EDR versions 2.1 which allow the diluent cap to be used
new correlation curve is generated. and 2.2) require reporting of hourly NOX for other parameters besides NOX
mass emissions (lb), the current versions emission rate
L. Appendix F of Equations F–24 and F–27 would
3. Negative Emission Values
1. NOX Mass Calculations remain in the rule. However, these
equations would no longer be applicable EPA proposes to provide special
EPA proposes to revise the manner in in 2009, when the use of XML–EDR reporting instructions to account for
which NOX mass data are collected format is required for all affected situations where the equations
under the XML–EDR format that will be sources.
required in 2009 as part of EPA’s effort prescribed by the rule yield negative
Today’s proposal also would revise
to re-engineer the Agency’s data values. First, when Equation 19–3 or
Section 8.2 of Appendix F, by splitting
collection systems. Under the current 19–5 (from EPA Method 19 in 40 CFR
it into two subsections, 8.2.1 and 8.2.2.
reporting requirements, sources are Section 8.2 of the current rule describes Part 60, Appendix A) is used to
required to report hourly NOX mass a procedure for calculating the NOX calculate NOX emission rate, modified
emissions (lb) and then to sum these mass emission rate in lb/hr, when NOX forms of these equations, designated as
hourly records and divide by 2000 lb/ mass emissions are determined using a Equations 19–3D and 19–5D, would be
ton to determine the quarterly NOX NOX concentration monitoring system used whenever the diluent cap is
mass emissions (tons). This is and a flow monitor. Section 8.2 cross- applied. Second, for any hour where
inconsistent with the manner in which references other parts of the rule, rather Equation F–14b results in a negative
SO2 and CO2 mass emissions data are than showing the actual equations used. hourly average CO2 value, EPA proposes
reported and aggregated. For SO2 and Today’s proposed rule would add to require 0.0% CO2 to be reported as
CO2, the hourly values are reported as Equation F–26a to proposed subsection the average CO2 value for that hour.
mass emission rates (lb/hr). The 8.2.1 and Equation F–26b to proposed Third, EPA proposes to require a default
quarterly cumulative mass emissions are subsection 8.2.2, clearly showing how heat input rate value of 1 mmBtu/hr to
calculated by multiplying each reported the NOX mass emission rate is be reported for any hour in which
hourly mass emission rate by the calculated on a wet and dry basis. Equation F–17 results in a negative
corresponding unit or stack operating Equation F–26 in Section 8.3 would be hourly heat input rate. These changes
time, summing these products, and then re-numbered as Equation F–26c. would be accomplished by modifying
dividing the sum by 2000 lb/ton to get Proposed Equations F–26a and F–26b Sections, 3.3.4, 4.4.1, and 5.2.3 of
tons of SO2 or CO2. are currently used by sources to Appendix F.
4. Calculation of Stack Gas Moisture each fuel are determined. Data from the of Appendix G, citing the newer
Content CEMS cannot be used for this purpose versions.
Today’s proposed rule would add because the prorated F-factor must be
N. Appendix K
Equation F–31 to a new Section 10 of known before the unit heat input rate
can be calculated. Today’s proposed rule addresses
Appendix F. This equation is used to several issues regarding the use of
Through the years, in response to
calculate stack gas moisture values from sorbent trap monitoring systems for the
inquiries about this, EPA has advised
wet and dry oxygen measurements, as measurement and reporting of Hg mass
sources to use the best available
described in Appendix A, Section auxiliary process data, such as fuel feed emissions. When this monitoring option
6.5.7(a). The equation is currently rates and measured GCV values, to is selected, the current rule requires the
represented in the EDR reporting provide heat input estimates for use of paired sorbent traps to measure
instructions as Equation M–1. calculating the prorated F-factor, but no the effluent Hg concentration. If the two
5. Site-Specific F-Factors (Single Fuel) official Agency policy guidance has Hg concentrations measured by the
been issued. To correct this situation, paired traps meet the required relative
For units that use CEMS to measure deviation (RD) specification in
today’s rule would revise the definition
the NOX emission rate in lb/mmBtu Appendix K of Part 75, and if each trap
of ‘‘Xi’’ (the fraction of the total heat
and/or the unit heat input rate in individually meets certain other QA
input derived from each fuel) in the
mmBtu/hr, an equation from Appendix requirements of Appendix K, then the
Equation F–8 nomenclature. The revised
F of Part 75 or from Method 19 of 40 two Hg concentrations are averaged
definition would require sources to
CFR Part 60 is required to convert the arithmetically and the average value is
determine Xi from the best available
raw CEMS data into the proper units of used to determine the Hg mass
information on the quantity of each fuel
measure. Each of these equations emissions in each hour of the data
combusted and its GCV value over a
contains an F-factor, which represents collection period. However, in cases
specified time period. The value of Xi
either the total volume of flue gas or the where either or both of the traps fails to
would be updated periodically, either
volume of CO2 generated per million meet the acceptance criteria, § 75.15(h)
hourly, daily, weekly, or monthly, and
Btu of heat input. The F-factor is fuel- and Table K–1 of Appendix K specify
the prorated F-factor used in the
specific. consequences of varying severity. As
emission calculations would be derived
Sections 3.3.5 and 3.3.6 of Appendix discussed in the following paragraphs,
from the Xi values from the most recent
F allow the owner or operator to use EPA has reconsidered these rule
update. The owner or operator would be
either a default F-factor from Table 1 in provisions and has concluded that some
required to document in the hard copy
Appendix F, or use Equation F–7a or F– of the consequences are too lenient
portion of the monitoring plan the
7b in Appendix F to calculate a site- while others are unnecessarily harsh.
method used to determine the Xi values.
specific F-factor, based on the The Agency is therefore proposing to
composition of the fuel. However, 7. Default F-Factors revise them to make them more
Appendix F neither specifies how much EPA proposes to add default F-factors consistent and equitable.
fuel sampling data is required to for petroleum coke and tire derived Section 75.15(h) currently provides a
develop a site-specific F-factor, nor how fuels to Table 1 in Section 3.3.5 of measure of relief to the affected sources
often the F-factor must be updated. Appendix F. The proposed values are whenever one of the paired traps is
To address this issue, today’s rule 9,832 dscf/mmBtu for Fd and 1,853 scf accidentally lost, damaged, or broken
would revise the introductory text of CO2/mmBtu for Fc for petroleum coke and cannot be analyzed. In such cases,
Appendix F, Section 3.3.6 to require and 10,261 dscf/mmBtu for Fd and 1,803 the owner or operator is allowed to use
each site-specific F-factor to be based on scf CO2/mmBtu for Fc for tire derived the remaining trap to determine the Hg
a minimum of 9 samples of the fuel. fuels. These F-factors are needed concentration for the data collection
Fuel samples taken during the 9 runs of because petroleum coke and tires are period, provided that the remaining trap
an annual RATA would be acceptable being used as a fuel by a number of meets all of the QA requirements of
for this purpose. Further, re- units. EPA is also proposing 9,819 dscf/ Appendix K. But the rule does not
determination of the F-factor would be mmBtu for Fd and 1,840 scf CO2/mmBtu require any adjustment of the data to
required at least annually, and the value for Fc as F-factors for sub-bituminous compensate for the loss of one of the
from the most recent determination coal. These F-factors were calculated samples. In view of this, EPA is
would be used in the emission using Part 75, Appendix F, Equations F– proposing to revise § 75.15(h) to require
calculations. 7a and F–7b and representative that the Hg concentration measured by
composition and gross calorific value the remaining valid trap be multiplied
6. Prorated F-Factors
(GCV) data for each fuel. by a ‘‘single trap adjustment factor’’
For affected units that co-fire (STAF) of 1.222. The STAF represents
combinations of fossil fuels or fossil 8. Revisions to Equation F–23 the maximum amount by which the Hg
fuels and wood residue and that use Consistent with the proposed changes concentration from the lost, damaged or
CEMS to monitor the NOX emission rate to § 75.11(e), expanding the broken trap could have exceeded the
or unit heat input rate, Section 3.3.6.4 applicability of Equation F–23 (which concentration measured by the valid
of Appendix F requires a prorated F- are discussed in detail in Section II.B.4 trap and still met the 10% RD
factor to be used in the emission of this preamble), modifications would specification.
calculations. The prorated F-factor is be made to Section 7 of Appendix F The Agency is also proposing to
calculated using Equation F–8 in (introductory text), and to the Equation revise Table K–1 in Appendix K, to
Appendix F. In applying Equation F–8, F–23 nomenclature. extend the use of the STAF to cases
the F-factor for each type of fuel is where one of the paired sorbent traps
weighted according to the fraction of the M. Appendix G either: (a) Fails a post-test leak check;
total heat input contributed by the fuel. Consistent with the changes to other (b) has excessive breakthrough in the
However, Equation F–8 fails to specify parts of the rule, EPA proposes to second section; or (c) is unable to meet
how the total unit heat input and the update the current ASTM standards the required percent recovery of the
fraction of the heat input contributed by listed in Sections 2.1.2, 2.2.1, and 2.2.2, third section elemental Hg spike. In all
three of these cases, provided that the daily operation of the monitoring Part 75 rule requirements are covered by
other trap meets all Appendix K system. Likewise, the sorbent material existing ICRs for the Acid Rain Program
requirements, rather than invalidating must be the same type that is used for (EPA ICR number 1633.13; OMB control
the sorbent trap system data for the daily operation. Proposed § 75.15(l) number 2060–0258), the NOX SIP Call
entire collection period, the Hg would require a diagnostic RATA of the (EPA ICR number 1857.03; OMB
concentration measured by the valid sorbent trap system whenever the size of number 2060–0445), and the Clean Air
trap, multiplied by the STAF, could be the sorbent traps or the type of sorbent Interstate Rule (EPA ICR number
used for Part 75 reporting. material is changed. Data from the 2152.01). The separate ICR for the
Section 7.2.3 of Appendix K requires modified sorbent trap system would not proposed rule revisions addresses the
that for each hour of the data collection be acceptable for Part 75 reporting until one time costs necessary for sources to
period, the ratio of the stack gas flow the RATA is passed, with one review the rule revisions and adapt their
rate to the sample flow rate through exception, i.e., data collected during a recordkeeping and reporting systems to
each sorbent trap must be maintained successful diagnostic RATA test period the revised requirements. The EPA
within 25 percent of the initial ratio could be reported as quality-assured. believes that the long term implications
established in the first hour of the data EPA is proposing to add these of the proposed rule revisions will be to
collection period. However, the current requirements because the relative reduce the ongoing burdens and costs
rule does not say what to do if this accuracy and bias of a sorbent trap associated with Part 75 compliance, but
criterion is not met. Rather, Table K–1 monitoring system are dependent upon those impacts will be addressed as EPA
indicates that the appropriate both the trap design and the type of renews the individual program ICRs.
consequences are to be determined on a sorbent material used. The annual monitoring, reporting, and
‘‘case-by-case’’ basis. EPA has Finally, today’s proposed rule would recordkeeping burden for this collection
reconsidered this approach and is revise section 7.2.3 of Appendix K to (averaged over the first 3 years after the
proposing to revise it, because it opens require that the sample flow rate effective date of the final rule) is
the door to inconsistent application of through a sorbent trap monitoring estimated to be 124,976 labor hours per
the sorbent trap monitoring system must be zero when the unit is year at a total annual cost of $8,581,420.
methodology. Therefore, Table K–1 not operating. This clarification is This estimate includes burdens for rule
would be revised to specify that a needed to prevent the system from review, recordkeeping and reporting
sample is invalidated if either: (a) More sampling ambient air during periods software upgrades, and software
than 5 percent of the hourly ratios; or when the combustion unit is off-line. debugging activities, as well as the
(b) more than 5 hourly ratios in the data Sampling ambient air when the unit is capital costs of upgrading recordkeeping
collection period (whichever is less not in operation would artificially lower and reporting software.
restrictive) fail to meet the ±25 percent the Hg concentrations measured by the Burden means the total time, effort, or
acceptance criterion. Further, if only sorbent traps, resulting in under- financial resources expended by persons
one of the paired traps is able to meet reporting of Hg mass emissions. to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
the specification, provided that it also or provide information to or for a
meets the rest of the Appendix K QA II. Administrative Requirements Federal agency. This includes the time
criteria, the valid trap could be used for A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory needed to review instructions; develop,
Part 75 reporting, if the single trap Planning and Review acquire, install, and utilize technology
adjustment factor of 1.222 is applied to and systems for the purposes of
the measured Hg concentration. This action is not a ‘‘significant collecting, validating, and verifying
Appendix K currently requires that regulatory action’’ under the terms of information, processing and
the data from a sorbent trap monitoring Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR maintaining information, and disclosing
system be invalidated whenever the 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore and providing information; adjust the
relative deviation between the Hg not subject to review under the EO. existing ways to comply with any
concentrations measured by the paired B. Paperwork Reduction Act previously applicable instructions and
traps is greater than 10 percent. EPA requirements; train personnel to be able
proposes to revise this requirement, to The information collection to respond to a collection of
allow sources to report the higher of the requirements in the proposed rule have information; search data sources;
two Hg concentrations measured by a been submitted for approval to OMB complete and review the collection of
pair of sorbent traps whenever the RD under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 information; and transmit or otherwise
specification is not met, rather than U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information disclose the information. An Agency
invalidating the sorbent trap system Collection Request (ICR) document may not conduct or sponsor, and a
data for the entire collection period. prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA person is not required to respond to a
EPA is also proposing, for consistency ICR number 2203.01. The information collection of information unless it
with the proposed changes § 75.22(a) requirements are based on the proposed displays a currently valid OMB control
(which are discussed in Section II.C.3 of revisions to the monitoring, number. The OMB control numbers for
this preamble), to revise Table K–1 to recordkeeping, and reporting EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed
include an alternative relative deviation requirements in 40 CFR Part 75, which in 40 CFR Part 9.
specification of 20 percent for paired are mandatory for all sources subject to To comment on the Agency’s need for
sorbent traps, where low effluent the Acid Rain Program under Title IV of this information, the accuracy of the
concentrations of Hg (≤ 1 µg/m3) are the Clean Air Act and certain other provided burden estimates, and any
encountered. emissions trading programs suggested methods for minimizing
Today’s proposed rule would add two administered by EPA. All information respondent burden, including the use of
new paragraphs, (k) and (l), to § 75.15. submitted to EPA pursuant to the automated collection techniques, EPA
Proposed § 75.15(k) would require that recordkeeping and reporting has established a public docket for this
whenever the RATA of a sorbent trap requirements for which a claim of rule, which includes this ICR, under
system is performed, the sorbent traps confidentiality is made is safeguarded Docket ID number OAR–2005–0132.
used to collect the RATA run data must according to Agency policies set forth in Submit any comments related to the ICR
be the same size as the traps used for 40 CFR Part 2, subpart B. The existing for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB.
See ADDRESSES section at the beginning represent minor changes to existing EPA has determined that this
of this notice for where to submit monitoring requirements used in EPA proposed rule does not contain a
comments to EPA. Send comments to emission trading programs. Although Federal mandate that may result in
OMB at the Office of Information and there will be some small level of up expenditures of $100 million or more
Regulatory Affairs, Office of front costs to reprogram existing for State, local, and tribal governments,
Management and Budget, 725 17th electronic data reporting software used in the aggregate, or in the private sector
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, under this program, the long term in any one year. Thus, today’s proposed
Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since effects of these proposed revisions is to rule is not subject to the requirements
OMB is required to make a decision allow continued efficient electronic data of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 submittals that should act to relieve EPA has determined that this rule
days after August 22, 2006, a comment some of the long term reporting burdens contains no regulatory requirements that
to OMB is best assured of having its full for affected sources, which include might significantly or uniquely affect
effect if OMB receives it by September some small entities. small governments. The revisions
21, 2006. The final rule will respond to We continue to be interested in the primarily would make certain changes
any OMB or public comments on the potential impacts of the proposed rule EPA has determined are necessary as
information collection requirements on small entities and welcome part of upgrading the data systems used
contained in this proposal. comments on issues related to such to manage data submitted under the
impacts. program and to streamline the methods
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act for sources to report their information.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The revisions also would clarify certain
generally requires an agency to prepare Title II of the Unfunded Mandates issues that have been raised during
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public ongoing implementation of the existing
rule subject to notice and comment Law 104–4, establishes requirements for rule and would update the information
rulemaking requirements under the Federal agencies to assess the effects of on various voluntary consensus
Administrative Procedure Act or any their regulatory actions on State, local, standards incorporated by reference in
other statute unless the agency certifies and tribal governments and the private the rule. Some States do have programs
that the rule will not have a significant sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, that rely on the monitoring provisions
economic impact on a substantial EPA generally must prepare a written in 40 CFR Part 75, and States may incur
number of small entities. Small entities statement, including a cost-benefit some costs associated with reviewing
include small businesses, small analysis, for proposed and final rules the proposed modifications to Part 75,
organizations, and small governmental with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may but the rule revisions and the impact on
jurisdictions. result in expenditures to State, local, the States would not be significant.
For purposes of assessing the impacts and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
of today’s proposed rule on small or to the private sector, of $100 million E. Executive Order 13132—Federalism
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A or more in any one year. Before Executive Order 13132, entitled
small business as defined by the Small promulgating an EPA rule for which a ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
Business Administration’s (SBA) written statement is needed, Section 205 1999), requires EPA to develop an
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a of the UMRA generally requires EPA to accountable process to ensure
small governmental jurisdiction that is a identify and consider a reasonable ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
government of a city, county, town, number of regulatory alternatives and and local officials in the development of
school district or special district with a adopt the least costly, most cost- regulatory policies that have federalism
population of less than 50,000; or (3) a effective, or least burdensome implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
small organization that is any not-for- alternative that achieves the objectives federalism implications’’ is defined in
profit enterprise which is independently of the rule. The provisions of Section the Executive Order to include
owned and operated and is not 205 do not apply when they are regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
dominant in its field. inconsistent with applicable law. effects on the States, on the relationship
After considering the economic Moreover, Section 205 allows EPA to between the national government and
impacts of today’s proposed rule on adopt an alternative other than the least the States, or on the distribution of
small entities, I certify that this action costly, most cost-effective, or least power and responsibilities among the
will not have a significant economic burdensome alternative if the various levels of government.’’
impact on a substantial number of small Administrator publishes with the final This proposed rule does not have
entities. In determining whether a rule rule an explanation why that alternative federalism implications. This proposed
has a significant economic impact on was not adopted. Before EPA establishes rule will not have substantial direct
small entities, the impact of concern is any regulatory requirements that may effects on the States, on the relationship
any significant adverse economic significantly or uniquely affect small between the national government and
impact on small entities, since the governments, including tribal the States, or on the distribution of
primary purpose of the regulatory governments, it must have developed power and responsibilities among the
flexibility analysis is to identify and under Section 203 of the UMRA a small various levels of government, as
address regulatory alternatives ‘‘which government agency plan. The plan must specified in Executive Order 13132.
minimize any significant economic provide for notifying potentially These proposed rule revisions represent
impact of the rule on small entities.’’ 5 affected small governments, enabling minor adjustments to existing
U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency officials of affected small governments regulations. The revisions primarily
may certify that a rule will not have a to have meaningful and timely input in would make certain changes EPA has
significant economic impact on a the development of EPA regulatory determined are necessary as part of
substantial number of small entities if proposals with significant Federal upgrading the data systems used to
the rule relieves regulatory burden or intergovernmental mandates, and manage data submitted under the
otherwise has a positive economic effect informing, educating, and advising program and to streamline the methods
on all of the small entities subject to the small governments on compliance with for sources to report their information.
rule. The proposed rule revisions the regulatory requirements. The revisions also would clarify certain
issues that have been raised during monitoring and reporting requirements Dated: August 4, 2006.
ongoing implementation of the existing implicate any environmental health or Stephen L. Johnson,
rule and would update the information safety risks, including any specific risks Administrator.
on various voluntary consensus that present a disproportionate risk to For the reasons set forth in the
standards incorporated by reference in children. The public is invited to submit preamble, EPA proposes to amend
the rule. Some States do have programs or identify peer-reviewed studies and chapter I of title 40 of the Code of
that rely on the monitoring provisions data, of which the agency may not be Federal Regulations as follows:
in 40 CFR Part 75, and States may incur aware, that are relevant to the
some costs associated with reviewing environmental health or safety risks to PART 72—PERMITS REGULATION
the proposed modifications to Part 75, children that could be implicated by
but the rule revisions and the impact on this proposed action. 1. The authority citation for Part 72
the States would not be significant. continues to read as follows:
H. Executive Order 13211—Actions
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7601 and 7651, et seq.
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
apply to this proposed rule. In the spirit
Distribution, or Use Subpart A—Acid Rain Program
of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote This proposed rule is not a General Provisions
communications between EPA and State ‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 2. Section 72.2 is amended as follows:
and local governments, EPA specifically a. In the definition of ‘‘Capacity
solicits comment on this proposed rule Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, factor’’, by adding the words ‘‘(or
from State and local officials. maximum observed hourly gross load
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
F. Executive Order 13175—Consultation 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have (in MWe/hr) if greater than the
and Coordination With Indian Tribal a significant adverse effect on the nameplate capacity)’’ after the word
Governments supply, distribution, or use of energy. ‘‘capacity’’ in paragraph (1), by
Executive Order 13175, entitled removing the word ‘‘design’’ and adding
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with I. National Technology Transfer and in its place the words ‘‘rated hourly’’ in
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR Advancement Act paragraph (2), and by adding the word
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA Section 12(d) of the National ‘‘rate’’ after the new phrase ‘‘rated
to develop an accountable process to Technology Transfer and Advancement hourly heat input’’ in paragraph (2);
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law b. In the definition of ‘‘Diluent cap’’,
tribal officials in the development of 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), by removing the words ‘‘, CO2 mass
regulatory policies that have tribal directs EPA to use voluntary consensus emission rate, or heat input rate,’’ after
implications.’’ This proposed rule does standards in its regulatory activities the words ‘‘NOX emission rate’’;
not have tribal implications, as specified unless to do so would be inconsistent c. In the definition of ‘‘EPA protocol
in Executive Order 13175. The proposed with applicable law or otherwise gas’’, by adding a new sentence to the
action makes minor revisions to existing impractical. end of the definition;
rule requirements. Thus, Executive Voluntary consensus standards are d. Revising the definition of
Order 13175 does not apply to this technical standards (e.g., materials ‘‘Excepted monitoring system’’;
proposed rule. The EPA specifically specifications, test methods, sampling e. Adding the new definitions in
solicits additional comment on the procedures, and business practices) that alphabetical order for ‘‘Air Emission
proposed rule from tribal officials. are developed or adopted by voluntary Testing Body (AETB)’’, ‘‘EPA Protocol
consensus standards bodies. The Gas Verification Program’’, ‘‘Long-term
G. Executive Order 13045—Protection of NTTAA directs EPA to provide cold storage’’, ‘‘Qualified Individual’’,
Children From Environmental Health Congress, through OMB, explanations and ‘‘Specialty gas producer’’; and
and Safety Risks when the Agency decides not to use f. Removing the definitions for
Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of available and applicable voluntary ‘‘Calibration gas’’, ‘‘Gas manufacturer’s
Children from Environmental Health consensus standards. This proposed intermediate standard (GMIS)’’, ‘‘NIST/
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, rule includes updated information on a EPA-approved certified reference
April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: number of voluntary consensus material or NIST/EPA-approved CRM’’,
(1) Is ‘‘economically significant’’ as standards previously included in 40 ‘‘NIST traceable reference material
defined under Executive Order 12866; CFR Part 75, as well as the proposed (NTRM)’’, ‘‘Research gas material
and (2) concerns an environmental addition of certain other voluntary (RGM)’’, ‘‘Research gas mixture (RGM)’’,
health or safety risk that EPA has reason consensus standards. The EPA ‘‘Standard reference material or SRM’’,
to believe may have a disproportionate welcomes comments on this aspect of ‘‘Standard reference material-equivalent
effect on children. If the regulatory the proposed rulemaking and compressed gas primary reference
action meets both criteria, the Agency specifically invites the public to identify material (SRM-equivalent PRM)’’, and
must evaluate the environmental health other potentially applicable voluntary ‘‘Zero air material’’.
or safety effects of the planned rule on consensus standards and to explain why The revisions and additions read as
children and explain why the planned such standards should be used in this follows:
regulation is preferable to other regulation. § 72.2 Definitions.
potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 72 and * * * * *
Agency. 75 Air Emission Testing Body (AETB)
means a company or other entity that
This proposed rule is not subject to Environmental protection, Acid rain,

the Executive Order because it is not Administrative practice and procedure, conducts Air Emissions Testing as
economically significant as defined in Air pollution control, Carbon dioxide, described in ASTM D7036–04.
Executive Order 12866, and because the Electric utilities, Nitrogen oxides, * * * * *
Agency does not have reason to believe Reporting and recordkeeping EPA protocol gas * * * Vendors
the proposed revisions to certain requirements, Sulfur oxides. advertising certification with the EPA
Traceability Protocol or distributing with § 75.20, for an affected unit which, c. Removing ‘‘D287–82 (Reapproved
gases as ‘‘EPA Protocol Gas’’ must on the applicable compliance date, is 1987)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘D287–
participate in the EPA Protocol Gas either in long-term cold storage (as 92 (2000)e1’’, in paragraph (a)(3);
Verification Program. Non-participating defined in § 72.2 of this chapter) or is d. Removing ‘‘D388–92’’ and adding
vendors may not use ‘‘EPA’’ in any form shutdown as the result of a planned in its place ‘‘D388–99e1’’, in paragraph
of advertising for these products, unless outage or a forced outage, thereby (a)(4);
approved by the Administrator. preventing the required continuous e. Removing and reserving paragraph
* * * * * monitoring system certification tests (a)(5);
EPA Protocol Gas Verification from being completed by the f. Adding the phrase ‘‘(1999)’’ at the
Program means the EPA Protocol Gas compliance date, the owner or operator end of ‘‘D1072–90’’, in paragraph (a)(6);
audit program described in Section shall provide notice of such unit storage g. Removing ‘‘D1217–91’’ and adding
2.1.10 of the ‘‘EPA Traceability Protocol or outage in accordance with in its place ‘‘D1217–93 (1998)’’, in
for Assay and Certification of Gaseous § 75.61(a)(3) or § 75.61(a)(7), as paragraph (a)(7);
applicable. For the planned and h. Adding the phrase ‘‘(1997)e1’’ at
Calibration Standards,’’ September
unplanned unit outages described in the end of D1250–80, and by removing
1997, EPA–600/R–97/121 (EPA Protocol
this paragraph, the owner or operator the phrase ‘‘(Reapproved 1990)’’, in
Procedure) or such revised procedure as
shall ensure that all of the continuous paragraph (a)(8);
approved by the Administrator. i. Removing the phrase ‘‘D1298–85
* * * * * monitoring systems for SO2, NOX, CO2,
(Reapproved 1990)’’ and adding in its
Excepted monitoring system means a Hg, opacity, and volumetric flow rate
place ‘‘D1298–99’’, in paragraph (a)(9);
monitoring system that follows the required under this part (or under the
j. Removing ‘‘D1480–91’’ and adding
procedures and requirements of § 75.15 applicable State or Federal mass
in its place ‘‘D1480–93 (1997)’’, in
of this chapter, § 75.19 of this chapter, emissions reduction program) are
paragraph (a)(10);
§ 75.81(b) of this chapter or of appendix installed and that all required k. Removing ‘‘D1481–91’’ and adding
D, or E to part 75 for approved certification tests are completed no later in its place ‘‘D1481–93 (1997)’’, in
exceptions to the use of continuous than 90 unit operating days or 180 paragraph (a)(11);
emission monitoring systems. calendar days (whichever occurs first) l. Removing ‘‘D1552–90’’ and adding
* * * * * after the date that the unit recommences in its place ‘‘D1552–01’’, in paragraph
Long-term cold storage means the commercial operation, notice of which (a)(12);
complete shut down of a unit intended date shall be provided under m. Removing ‘‘D1826–88’’ and adding
to last for an extended period of time (at § 75.61(a)(3) or § 75.61(a)(7), as in its place ‘‘D1826–94 (1998)’’, in
least two calendar years) where notice applicable. The owner or operator shall paragraph (a)(13);
for long-term cold storage is provided determine and report SO2 concentration, n. Removing ‘‘D1945–91’’ and adding
under § 75.61(a)(7). NOX emission rate, CO2 concentration, in its place ‘‘D1945–96 (2001)’’, in
Hg concentration, and flow rate data (as paragraph (a)(14);
* * * * *
Qualified Individual means an applicable) for all unit operating hours o. Adding the phrase ‘‘(2000)’’ after
individual who meets the requirements after the applicable compliance date ‘‘D1946–90’’, in paragraph (a)(15);
as described in ASTM D7036–04. until all of the required certification p. Removing and reserving paragraph
tests are successfully completed, using (a)(16);
* * * * * either: q. Removing ‘‘D2013–86’’ and adding
Specialty gas producer means an
(1) The maximum potential in its place ‘‘D2013–01’’, in paragraph
organization that prepares and analyzes
concentration of SO2 (as defined in (a)(17);
compressed gas mixtures for use as r. Removing and reserving paragraph
calibration gases and that offers the section 2.1.1.1 of appendix A to this
part), the maximum potential NOX (a)(18);
mixtures for sale to end users or to s. Removing ‘‘D2234–89’’ and adding
third-party vendors for resale to end emission rate, as defined in § 72.2 of
this chapter, the maximum potential in its place ‘‘D2234–00e1’’, in paragraph
users. (a)(19);
flow rate, as defined in section 2.1.4.1
* * * * * t. Removing and reserving paragraph
of appendix A to this part, the
maximum potential Hg concentration, (a)(20);
PART 75—CONTINUOUS EMISSION u. Removing ‘‘D2502–87’’ and adding
MONITORING as defined in section 2.1.7.1 of appendix
in its place ‘‘D2502–92 (1996)’’, in
A to this part, or the maximum potential
3. The authority citation for Part 75 paragraph (a)(21);
CO2 concentration, as defined in section
continues to read as follows: v. Removing ‘‘D2503–82 (Reapproved
2.1.3.1 of appendix A to this part; or
1987)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘D2503–
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7601, 7651k, and (2) The conditional data validation 92 (1997)’’, in paragraph (a)(22);
7651k note. provisions of § 75.20(b)(3); or w. Removing ‘‘D2622–92’’ and adding
(3) Reference methods under in its place ‘‘D2622–98’’, in paragraph
Subpart A—General
§ 75.22(b); or (a)(23);
4. Section 75.4 is amended by revising (4) Another procedure approved by x. Removing ‘‘D3174–89’’ and adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows: the Administrator pursuant to a petition in its place ‘‘D3174–00’’, in paragraph
under § 75.66. (a)(24);
§ 75.4 Compliance dates. y. Adding the phrase ‘‘(1997)e1’’ after
* * * * *
* * * * * ‘‘D3176–89’’, in paragraph (a)(25);
(d) This paragraph, (d), applies to 5. Section 75.6 is amended by: z. Adding the phrase ‘‘(1997)’’ after
affected units under the Acid Rain a. Removing ‘‘D129–91’’ and adding ‘‘D3177–89’’, in paragraph (a)(26);
Program and to units subject to a State in its place ‘‘D129–00’’, in paragraph aa. Adding the phrase ‘‘(1997)’’ after
or Federal pollutant mass emissions (a)(1); ‘‘D3178–89’’, in paragraph (a)(27);
reduction program that adopts the b. Removing ‘‘D240–87’’ and adding bb. Removing ‘‘D3238–90’’ and
emission monitoring and reporting in its place ‘‘D240–00’’, in paragraph adding in its place ‘‘D3238–95
provisions of this part. In accordance (a)(2); (2000)e1’’, in paragraph (a)(28);
cc. Removing ‘‘D3246–81 yy. Adding the phrase ‘‘(1st edition)’’ c. Revising paragraph (d)(3);
(Reapproved 1987)’’ and adding in its after the date ‘‘December 1994’’, d. Revising paragraph (e) introductory
place ‘‘D3246–96’’, in paragraph (a)(29); removing the phrase ‘‘April 1992 text, (e)(1) and (e)(3) introductory text;
dd. Removing and reserving (reaffirmed January 1997)’’ and adding e. Removing and reserving paragraph
paragraph (a)(30); in its place the phrase ‘‘June 2001’’, (e)(2); and
ee. Removing ‘‘D3588–91’’ and adding adding the phrase ‘‘(Reaffirmed f. Revising paragraph (f).
in its place ‘‘D3588–98’’, in paragraph September 2000)’’ after the date The revisions and additions read as
(a)(31); ‘‘September 1995’’, adding the phrase follows:
ff. Removing ‘‘D4052–91’’ and adding ‘‘(1st Edition)’’ after the date ‘‘June
in its place ‘‘D4052–96 (2002)e1’’, in 1996’’, adding the phrase ‘‘(1st Edition)’’ § 75.11 Specific provisions for monitoring
paragraph (a)(32); after the date ‘‘April 1995’’, and adding SO2 emissions.
gg. Removing ‘‘D4057–88’’ and adding the phrase ‘‘(1st Edition)’’ after the date * * * * *
in its place ‘‘D4057–95 (2000)’’, in ‘‘March 1997’’, in paragraph (f)(1); (d) * * *
paragraph (a)(33); zz. Adding the phrase ‘‘Manual of (3) By using the low mass emissions
hh. Removing ‘‘D4177–82 Measurement Standards, Chapter 4:’’ excepted methodology in § 75.19(c) for
(Reapproved 1990)’’ and adding in its after the phrase ‘‘(API)’’, adding the estimating hourly SO2 mass emissions if
place ‘‘D4177–95 (2000)’’, in paragraph phrase ‘‘(Provers Accumulating at Least the affected unit qualifies as a low mass
(a)(34) 10,000 Pulses), Measurement emissions unit under § 75.19(a) and (b).
ii. Removing ‘‘D4239–85’’ and adding Coordination (Second Edition, March If this option is selected for SO2, the
in its place ‘‘D4239–02’’, in paragraph 2001)’’, after the words ‘‘Conventional LME methodology must also be used for
(a)(35); Pipe Provers’’, adding the phrase ‘‘(First NOX and CO2 when these parameters
jj. Removing ‘‘D4294–90’’ and adding Edition)’’ after the words ‘‘Small are required to be monitored by
in its place ‘‘D4294–98’’, in paragraph Volume Provers’’, adding the phrase applicable program(s).
(a)(36); ‘‘Measurement Coordination (Second (e) Special considerations during the
kk. Removing the phrase Edition, May 2000)’’ after the phrase combustion of gaseous fuels. The owner
‘‘(Reapproved 1989)’’ and adding in its ‘‘Master-Meter Provers,’’ and removing or operator of an affected unit that uses
place the phrase ‘‘(2000)’’, in paragraph the phrase ‘‘from Chapter 4 of the a certified flow monitor and a certified
(a)(37); Manual of Petroleum Measurement diluent gas (O2 or CO2) monitor to
ll. Adding the phrase ‘‘(2001)’’ after Standards, October 1988 (Reaffirmed measure the unit heat input rate shall,
‘‘D4891–89’’, in paragraph (a)(39); 1993)’’, in paragraph (f)(3); and during any hours in which the unit
mm. Removing ‘‘D5291–92’’ and aaa. Adding new paragraph (f)(4). combusts only gaseous fuel, determine
adding in its place ‘‘D5291–01’’, in The revisions and additions read as SO2 emissions in accordance with
paragraph (a)(40); follows: paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(3) of this section,
nn. Adding the phrase ‘‘(1997)’’ after
§ 75.6 Incorporation by reference. as applicable.
‘‘D5373–93’’, in paragraph (a)(41);
oo. Removing ‘‘D5504–94’’ and (a) * * * (1) If the gaseous fuel qualifies for a
adding in its place ‘‘D5504–01’’, in (45) ASTM D6667–04, Standard Test default SO2 emission rate under Section
paragraph (a)(42); Method for Determination of Total 2.3.1.1, 2.3.2.1.1, or 2.3.6(b) of appendix
pp. Adding new paragraphs (a)(45), Volatile Sulfur in Gaseous D to this part, the owner or operator
(a)(46), (a)(47), and (a)(48); Hydrocarbons and Liquified Petroleum may determine SO2 emissions by using
qq. Removing the phrase ‘‘with Gases by Ultraviolet Fluorescence, for Equation F–23 in appendix F to this
September 1990 Errata’’ and adding in appendix D of this part. part. Substitute into Equation F–23 the
its place the phrase ‘‘(Reaffirmed (46) ASTM D4809–00, ‘‘Standard Test hourly heat input, calculated using the
1995)’’, in paragraph (b)(1); Method for Heat of Combustion of certified flow monitoring system and
rr. Removing the date ‘‘1990’’ and Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb the certified diluent monitor (according
adding in its place the date ‘‘1997’’ in Calorimeter (Precision Method), for to the applicable equation in section 5.2
the parenthetical, in paragraph (b)(2); appendices D and F of this part. of appendix F to this part), in
ss. Adding the phrase ‘‘(Reaffirmed (47) ASTM D5865–01ae1, ‘‘Standard conjunction with the appropriate
2001)’’ after ‘‘ASME–MFC–5M–1985’’, Test Method for Gross Calorific Value of default SO2 emission rate from section
in paragraph (b)(3); Coal and Coke’’, for appendices A, D, 2.3.1.1, 2.3.2.1.1, or 2.3.6(b) of appendix
tt. Removing the phrase ‘‘1987 with and F of this part. D to this part. When this option is
June 1987 Errata’’ and adding in its (48) ASTM D7036–04, ‘‘Standard chosen, the owner or operator shall
placethe number ‘‘1998’’ at the end of Practice for Competence of Air Emission perform the necessary data acquisition
‘‘MFC–6M-’’, in paragraph (b)(4); Testing Bodies’’, for appendices A, B, and handling system tests under
uu. Removing the date ‘‘1992’’ and and E of this part. § 75.20(c), and shall meet all quality
adding in its place the date ‘‘2001’’ in * * * * * control and quality assurance
the parenthetical, in paragraph (b)(5); (f) * * * requirements in appendix B to this part
vv. Removing the phrase ‘‘with (4) American Petroleum Institute for the flow monitor and the diluent
December 1989 Errata’’ and adding in its (API) Manual of Petroleum monitor; or
place the phrase ‘‘(Reaffirmed 2001)’’, in Measurement Standards, Chapter 22— (2) [Reserved]
paragraph (b)(6); Testing Procedures: Section 2— (3) The owner or operator may
ww. Removing the number ‘‘86’’ and Differential Pressure Flow Measurement determine SO2 mass emissions by using
adding in its place the number ‘‘1996’’ Devices (First Edition, August 2005) for a certified SO2 continuous monitoring
at the end of ‘‘GPA Standard 2172-’’, in Appendix D to this part. system, in conjunction with the certified
paragraph (d)(1); 6. Section 75.11 is amended by: flow rate monitoring system. However,
xx. Removing the number ‘‘90’’ and a. Revising the heading of the section; if the gaseous fuel is very low sulfur fuel
adding in its place the number ‘‘1999’’ b. Adding the phrase ‘‘and 14.0% for (as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter), the
at the end of ‘‘GPA Standard 2261-’’, in natural gas (boilers, only)’’ after the SO2 monitoring system shall meet the
paragraph (d)(2); word ‘‘wood’’, in paragraph (b)(1); following quality assurance provisions
when the very low sulfur fuel is a. Removing the reference ‘‘(j)’’ and § 75.16 Special provisions for monitoring
combusted: adding the reference ‘‘(l)’’ in its place, emissions from common, bypass, and
in the introductory paragraph; multiple stacks for SO2 emissions and heat
* * * * * input determinations.
(4) The provisions in paragraph (e)(1) b. Revising paragraph (h); and
of this section, may also be used for the c. Adding paragraphs (k) and (l). * * * * *
The revisions and additions read as (b) * * *
combustion of a solid or liquid fuel that (1) * * *
meets the definition of very low sulfur follows:
(ii) Install, certify, operate, and
fuel in § 72.2 of this chapter, mixtures § 75.15 Special provisions for measuring maintain an SO2 continuous emission
of such fuels, or combinations of such Hg mass emissions using the excepted monitoring system and flow monitoring
fuels with gaseous fuel, if the owner or sorbent trap monitoring methodology. system in the common stack and
operator submits a petition under * * * * * combine emissions for the affected units
§ 75.66 for a default SO2 emission rate (h) The hourly Hg mass emissions for for recordkeeping and compliance
for each fuel, mixture or combination, each collection period are determined purposes.
and if the Administrator approves the using the results of the analyses in * * * * *
petition. conjunction with contemporaneous 11. Section 75.17 is amended by
(f) Other units. The owner or operator hourly data recorded by a certified stack revising paragraph (d)(2) to read as
of an affected unit that combusts wood, flow monitor, corrected for the stack gas follows:
refuse, or other material in addition to moisture content. For each pair of
oil or gas shall comply with the sorbent traps analyzed, the average of § 75.17 Special provisions for monitoring
monitoring provisions for coal-fired the two Hg concentrations shall be used emissions from common, bypass, and
units specified in paragraph (a) of this for reporting purposes under § 75.84(f). multiple stacks for NOX emission rate.
section, except where the owner or Notwithstanding this requirement, if, * * * * *
operator has an approved petition to use due to circumstances beyond the control (d) * * *
the provisions of paragraph (e)(1) of this of the owner or operator, one of the (2) Install, certify, operate, and
section. paired traps is accidentally lost, maintain a NOX-diluent CEMS only on
7. Section 75.12 is amended by: damaged, or broken and cannot be the main stack. If this option is chosen,
a. Revising the section heading; analyzed, the results of the analysis of it is not necessary to designate the
b. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ before the other trap may be used for reporting exhaust configuration as a multiple
the number ‘‘15.0%’’, and by adding the purposes, provided that: stack configuration in the monitoring
phrase ‘‘; and 18.0% for natural gas (1) The other trap has met all of the plan required under § 75.53, with
(boilers, only)’’ after the word ‘‘wood’’, applicable quality-assurance respect to NOX or any other parameter
in paragraph (b); and requirements of this part; and that is monitored only at the main stack.
c. Revising paragraph (e)(3). (2) The Hg concentration measured by For each unit operating hour in which
The revisions read as follows: the other trap is multiplied by a factor the bypass stack is used and the
of 1.222. emissions are either uncontrolled (or the
§ 75.12 Specific provisions for monitoring add-on controls are not documented to
NOX emission rate.
* * * * *
(k) When a sorbent trap monitoring be operating properly), report the
* * * * * system is tested for relative accuracy, maximum potential NOX emission rate
(e) * * * both the size of the sorbent traps and the (as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter).
(3) Use the low mass emissions type of sorbent material used by the The maximum potential NOX emission
excepted methodology in § 75.19(c) for traps shall be the same as for daily rate may be specific to the type of fuel
estimating hourly NOX emission rate operation of the system. combusted in the unit during the bypass
and hourly NOX mass emissions, if (l) Whenever the size of the sorbent (see § 75.33(c)(8)). Alternatively, for a
applicable under § 75.19(a) and (b). If traps or the type of sorbent material unit with NOX add-on emission
this option is selected for NOX, the LME used by the traps is changed, the owner controls, for each unit operating hour in
methodology must also be used for SO2 or operator shall conduct a diagnostic which the bypass stack is used and the
and CO2 when these parameters are RATA of the sorbent trap monitoring emissions are controlled, the owner or
required to be monitored by applicable system. The modified system shall not operator may report the maximum
program(s). be used to report Hg emissions under controlled NOX emission rate (MCR)
* * * * * this part until the RATA has been instead of the maximum potential NOX
8. Section 75.13 is amended by performed and passed. Notwithstanding emission rate provided that the add-on
revising paragraph (d)(3) to read as this requirement, Hg concentrations controls are documented to be operating
follows: measured by the modified system properly, as described in the quality
during a successful RATA may be assurance/quality control program for
§ 75.13 Specific provisions for monitoring reported as quality-assured data under the unit, required by section 1 in
CO2 emissions. appendix B of this part. To provide the
this part.
* * * * * 10. Section 75.16 is amended by: necessary documentation, the owner or
(d) * * * a. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii); operator shall record parametric data to
(3) Use the low mass emissions b. Adding the word ‘‘rate’’ after the verify the proper operation of the NOX
excepted methodology in § 75.19(c) for phrase ‘‘report heat input’’ in the last add-on emission controls as described
estimating hourly CO2 mass emissions, sentence, in paragraph (e)(1); and in § 75.34(d). Furthermore, the owner or
if applicable under § 75.19(a) and (b). If c. Replacing both occurrences of the operator shall calculate the MCR using
this option is selected for CO2, the LME phrase ‘‘steam flow’’ with the phrase the procedure described in section
methodology must also be used for NOX ‘‘steam load’’ and adding the phrase ‘‘or 2.1.2.1(b) of Appendix A to this part by
and SO2 when these parameters are mmBtu/hr thermal output’’ inside the replacing the words ‘‘maximum
required to be monitored by applicable parentheses, after the phrase ‘‘in 1000 potential NOX emission rate (MER)’’
program(s). lb/hr’’, in paragraph (e)(3). with the words ‘‘maximum controlled
9. Section 75.15 is amended by: The revisions read as follows: NOX emission rate (MCR)’’ in and by
using the NOX MEC instead of the NOX this section to determine the (1) * * *
MPC. appropriate SO2 emission rate for use in (v) A cycle time test, (where, for the
12. Section 75.19 is amended by: calculating hourly SO2 mass emissions NOX-diluent continuous emission
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); under this section. Alternatively, for monitoring system, the test is performed
b. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(i); fuel oil combustion, a lower, fuel- separately on the NOX pollutant
c. Adding the phrase, ‘‘that meets the specific SO2 emission factor may be concentration monitor and the diluent
quality assurance requirements of used in lieu of the applicable emission gas monitor); and
either: this part, or appendix F to part factor from Table LM–1, if a federally
60 of this chapter, or a comparable State * * * * *
enforceable permit condition is in place 14. Section 75.21 is amended by
CEM program,’’ after the abbreviation that limits the sulfur content of the oil.
‘‘CEMS’’, in paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(G); removing the words ‘‘or (e)(2)’’ at the
If this alternative is chosen, the fuel- end of the first sentence of paragraph
d. Adding the word ‘‘add-on’’ before
specific SO2 emission rate in lb/mmBtu (a)(4).
the first instance of the phrase ‘‘NOX
shall be calculated by multiplying the 15. Section 75.22 is amended by
controls’’, in paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(H)(3);
e. Adding the phrase ‘‘(1st Edition)’’ fuel sulfur content limit (weight percent revising paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(7) to
after the date ‘‘December 1994’’, sulfur) by 1.01. In addition, the owner read as follows:
replacing the phrase ‘‘April 1992 or operator shall periodically determine
the sulfur content of the oil combusted § 75.22 Reference test methods.
(reaffirmed January 1997)’’ with the date
‘‘June 2001’’ after the phrase ‘‘Stationary in the unit, using one of the oil (a) * * *
Tanks by Automatic Tank Gauging,’’, sampling and analysis options described (5) Methods 6, 6A, 6B or 6C, and 7,
adding the phrase ‘‘(Reaffirmed in section 2.2 of Appendix D to this 7A, 7C, 7D or 7E, as applicable, are the
September 2000)’’ after the date part, and shall keep records of these fuel reference methods for determining SO2
‘‘September 1995’’, adding the phrase sampling results in a format suitable for and NOX pollutant concentrations.
‘‘(1st Edition)’’ after the date ‘‘June inspection and auditing. If the unit Alternatively, Method 20 may be used
1996’’, adding the phrase ‘‘(1st Edition)’’ combusts gaseous fuel(s) other than as the reference method for relative
after the date ‘‘April 1995’’, and adding natural gas, the owner or operator shall accuracy test audits of NOX CEMS
the phrase ‘‘(1st Edition)’’ after the date use the procedures in section 2.3.6 of installed on combustion turbines.
‘‘March 1997’’, in paragraph appendix D to this part to document the (Methods 6A and 6B may also be used
(c)(3)(ii)(B)(2); total sulfur content of each such fuel to determine SO2 emission rate in lb/
f. Removing the words ‘‘from Table and to determine the appropriate default mmBtu.) Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E
LM–1 of this section’’ from the first SO2 emission rate for each such fuel. must be used to measure total NOX
sentence of paragraph (c)(4)(i)(A); * * * * * emissions, both NO and NO2, for
g. Revising the heading to paragraph (4) * * * purposes of this part. The owner or
(c)(4)(ii); and (ii) NOX mass emissions and NOX operator shall not use the following
h. Adding paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(D). emission rate. * * * exceptions or options of method 7E:
The revisions and additions read as (D) The quarterly and cumulative (i) Section 7.1 of the method allowing
follows: NOX emission rate in lb/mmBtu (if for use of prepared calibration gas
required by the applicable program(s)) mixtures that are produced in
§ 75.19 Optional SO2, NOX, and CO2
emissions calculation for low mass shall be determined as follows. accordance with method 205 in
emissions units. Calculate the quarterly NOX emission Appendix M of 40 CFR Part 51;
rate by taking the arithmetic average of (ii) Paragraph (3) in section 8.4 of the
* * * * *
(a) * * * all of the hourly EFNOx values. Calculate method allowing for the use of a multi-
(1) For units that meet the the cumulative (year-to-date) NOX hole probe to satisfy the multipoint
requirements of this paragraph (a)(1) emission rate by taking the arithmetic traverse requirement of the method;
and paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) of this average of the quarterly NOX emission (iii) Section 8.6 of the method
section, the low mass emissions (LME) rates. allowing for the use of ‘‘Dynamic
excepted methodology in paragraph (c) * * * * * Spiking’’ as an alternative to the
of this section may be used in lieu of 13. Section 75.20 is amended by: interference and system bias checks of
continuous emission monitoring a. Adding a new sentence after the the method. Dynamic spiking may be
systems or, if applicable, in lieu of third sentence of paragraph (b) conducted (optionally) as an additional
methods under appendices D, E, and G introductory text; quality assurance check.
to this part, for the purpose of b. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(v); and * * * * *
determining unit heat input, NOX, SO2, c. Removing paragraphs (f)(1) and (7) ASTM D6784–02, ‘‘Standard Test
and CO2 mass emissions, and NOX (f)(2). Method for Elemental, Oxidized,
emission rate under this part. If the The revisions and additions read as Particle-Bound, and Total Mercury in
owner or operator of a qualifying unit follows: Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired
elects to use the LME methodology, it Stationary Sources’’ (also known as the
must be used for all parameters that are § 75.20 Initial certification and Ontario Hydro Method)(incorporated by
recertification procedures. reference, see § 75.6) is the reference
required to be monitored by the
applicable program(s). For example, for * * * * * method for determining Hg
an Acid Rain Program LME unit, the (b) * * * The owner or operator shall concentration. Alternatively, Method 29
methodology must be used to estimate also recertify the continuous emission in appendix A–8 to part 60 of this
SO2, NOX, and CO2 mass emissions, monitoring systems for a unit that has chapter may be used, with these caveats:
NOX emission rate, and unit heat input. recommenced commercial operation the procedures for preparation of Hg
* * * * * following a period of long-term cold standards and sample analysis in
(c) * * * storage as defined in § 72.2 of this sections 13.4.1.1 through 13.4.1.3 ASTM
(1) * * * chapter. * * * D6784–02 shall be followed instead of
(i) If the unit combusts only natural * * * * * the procedures in sections 7.5.33 and
gas and/or fuel oil, use Table LM–1 of (c) * * * 11.1.3 of Method 29, and the QA/QC
procedures in section 13.4.2 of ASTM average Hg concentration measured by c. Replacing the word ‘‘Whenever’’
D6784–02 shall be performed instead of the two trains (vapor phase, only) in the with the word ‘‘If’’, and by replacing the
the procedures in section 9.2.3 of relative accuracy calculations. As a word ‘‘each’’ with the words ‘‘that hour
Method 29. The tester may also opt to second alternative, an instrumental of the’’, in paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4);
use the sample recovery and preparation reference method or other suitable d. Replacing the word ‘‘Whenever’’
procedures in ASTM D6784–02 instead reference method capable of measuring with the word ‘‘If’’, and by replacing the
of the Method 29 procedures, as follows: total vapor phase Hg may be used, words ‘‘each hour of each’’ with the
sections 8.2.8 and 8.2.9.1 of Method 29 subject to the approval of the words ‘‘that hour of the’’, in paragraphs
may be replaced with sections 13.2.9.1 Administrator. (c)(1) introductory text, (c)(2)
through 13.2.9.3 of ASTM D6784–02 ; * * * * * introductory text, (c)(3), and (c)(4);
sections 8.2.9.2 and 8.2.9.3 of Method 16. Section 75.32 is amended by
29 may be replaced with sections e. Revising Tables 1 and 2 in
replacing the phrase ‘‘need not be
13.2.10.1 through 13.2.10.4 of ASTM paragraph (c)(8)(iv);
calculated during the’’ with the phrase
D6784–02; section 8.3.4 of Method 29 ‘‘shall be calculated for each hour f. Revising Table 3 in paragraph (e)(3);
may be replaced with section 13.3.4 or during each’’, by replacing the word and
13.3.6 of ASTM D6784–02 (as ‘‘last’’ with the word ‘‘each’’, and by h. Replacing the word ‘‘Whenever’’
appropriate); and section 8.3.5 of removing the phrase ‘‘as the monitor with the word ‘‘If’’, and by replacing the
Method 29 may be replaced with section availability used’’ after the words ‘‘data words ‘‘each hour of each’’ with the
13.3.5 or 13.3.6 of ASTM D6784–02 (as period’’, in paragraph (b). words ‘‘that hour of the’’, in paragraphs
appropriate). Whenever ASTM D6784– 17. Section 75.33 is amended by: (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), and (d)(4).
02 or Method 29 is used, paired a. Replacing the word ‘‘Whenever’’
The revisions and additions read as
sampling trains are required. To validate with the word ‘‘If’’, and by replacing the
follows:
a RATA run, the relative deviation (RD), words ‘‘each hour of each’’ with the
calculated according to section 11.7 of words ‘‘that hour of the’’, in paragraph § 75.33 Standard missing data procedures
appendix K to this part, must not exceed (b)(1) introductory text; for SO2, NOX, Hg, and flow rate.
10 percent, when the average b. Replacing the word ‘‘Whenever’’ * * * * *
concentration is greater than 1.0 µg/m3. with the word ‘‘If’’, and by replacing the
(c) * * *
If the average concentration is ≤ 1.0 µg/ words ‘‘each hour of each’’ with the
m3, the RD must not exceed 20 percent. words ‘‘that hour of the’’, in paragraph (8) * * *
If the RD criterion is met, use the (b)(2) introductory text; (iv) * * *
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
Lookback
Monitor data availability (percent) Duration (N) of CEMS outage (hours) 2 Method period
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 < N ≤ 8 .................................................... Average ................................................ HB/HA
90 for Hg).
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 < N > 0 .................................................... For SO2, CO2, Hg, and H2O **,
80 for Hg).
Maximum value1 .................................. 720 hours *
For O2 and H2Ox:.
Minimum value1 ................................... 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 % None
(for O2 and H2Ox).
HB/HA = hour before and hour after the CEMS outage.

* Quality-assured, monitor operating hours, during unit operation. May be either fuel-specific or non-fuel-specific. For units that report data only
for the ozone season, include only quality assured monitor operating hours within the ozone season in the lookback period. Use data from no
earlier than 3 years prior to the missing data period.
1 Where a unit with add-on SO or Hg emission controls can demonstrate that the controls are operating properly, as provided in § 75.34, the
2
unit may, upon approval, use the maximum controlled emission rate 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, as provided in
2
§ 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 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 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 (per- Duration (N) of CEMS outage Load

Method Lookback period
cent) (hours) 2 ranges
95 or more ................................ N ≤ 24 ....................................... Average .................................... 2160 hours * .............................. Yes

N > 24 ....................................... The greater of:
Average .................................... HB/HA ....................................... No
90th percentile .......................... 2160 hours * .............................. Yes
90 or more, but below 95 ......... N ≤ 8 ......................................... Average .................................... 2160 hours * .............................. Yes
N > 8 ......................................... The greater of:
Average .................................... HB/HA ....................................... No
95th percentile .......................... 2160 hours * .............................. Yes
80 or more, but below 90 ......... N > 0 ......................................... Maximum value 1 ...................... 2160 hours * .............................. Yes
Below 80 ................................... N > 0 ......................................... Maximum potential NOX emis- None ......................................... No
sion rate3; or maximum po-
tential NOX concentration3; 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
X emission controls can demonstrate that the controls are operating properly, as provided in § 75.34, the unit
may, upon approval, use the maximum controlled emission rate from the previous 2160 quality-assured monitor operating hours. Alternatively,
units with add-on controls that report NOX mass emissions on a year-round basis under subpart H of this part may use separate ozone season
and non-ozone season databases 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
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 load bin, from the previous 2160 quality-assured monitor operating
hours.
* * * * * (3) * * *
(e) * * *
TABLE 3.—NON-LOAD-BASED MISSING DATA PROCEDURE FOR NOX-DILUENT CEMS AND NOX CONCENTRATION CEMS
Lookback pe-
Monitor data availability (percent) Duration (N) of CEMS outage (hours) 1 Method riod
95 or more ................................................ N ≤ 24 ..................................................... Average ................................................... 2160 hours *

N > 24 ..................................................... 90th percentile ........................................ 2160 hours *
90 or more, but below 95 ......................... N ≤ 8 ....................................................... Average ................................................... 2160 hours *
N > 8 ....................................................... 95th percentile ........................................ 2160 hours *
80 or more, but below 90 ......................... N > 0 ....................................................... Maximum value ....................................... 2160 hours *
Below 80, or operational bin indetermin- N > 0 ....................................................... Maximum potential NOX emission rate 2 None
able. or maximum potential NOX concentra-
tion 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 2160 quality-as-
sured monitor operating hours.
* * * * * quality control program), in lieu of shall apply rather than the trigger
18. Section 75.34 is amended by: reporting the maximum potential value, conditions prescribed for SO2.
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory the owner or operator may substitute, as * * * * *
text; applicable, the greater of: (c) For units with FGD systems or
b. Amending paragraph (a)(2)(ii) by (i) The maximum expected SO2 add-on Hg emission controls, when the
replacing the words ‘‘and (c)(3)’’ with ‘‘, concentration or 1.25 times the percent monitor data availability is less
(c)(3) and (c)(5), and § 75.38(c),’’; maximum hourly controlled SO2 than 80.0 percent and is greater than or
c. Revising paragraph (a)(3); concentration recorded in the previous equal to 70.0 percent, and a missing
d. Adding paragraph (a)(5); and
720 quality-assured monitor operating data period occurs, consistent with
e. Revising paragraph (d) by replacing
hours; § 75.34(a)(3), for each missing data hour
the words ‘‘paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(3)’’
with ‘‘paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3) and (ii) The maximum expected NOX in which the FGD or Hg emission
(a)(5)’’. concentration or 1.25 times the controls are documented to be operating
The revisions and additions read as maximum hourly controlled NOX properly, the owner or operator may
follows: concentration recorded in the previous report the maximum controlled Hg
2,160 quality-assured monitor operating concentration recorded in the previous
§ 75.34 Units with add-on emission hours at the corresponding unit load 720 quality-assured monitor operating
controls. range or operational bin; hours. In addition, when the percent
(a) The owner or operator of an (iii) The maximum hourly controlled monitor data availability is less than
affected unit equipped with add-on SO2 NOX emission rate (MCR) or 1.25 times 70.0 percent and a missing data period
and/or NOX emission controls shall the maximum hourly controlled NOX occurs, consistent with § 75.34(a)(5), for
provide substitute data in accordance emission rate recorded in the previous each missing data hour in which the
with paragraphs (a)(1), through (a)(5) of 2,160 quality-assured monitor operating FGD or Hg emission controls are
this section for each hour in which hours at the corresponding unit load documented to be operating properly,
quality-assured data from the outlet SO2 range or operational bin; the owner or operator may report the
and/or NOX monitoring system(s) are (iv) For the purposes of implementing greater of the maximum expected Hg
not obtained. the missing data options in paragraphs concentration (MEC) or 1.25 times the
* * * * * (a)(5)(i) through (a)(5)(iii) of this section, maximum controlled Hg concentration
(3) For each missing data hour in the maximum expected SO2 and NOX recorded in the previous 720 quality-
which the percent monitor data concentrations shall be determined, assured monitor operating hours. The
availability for SO2 or NOX, calculated respectively, according to sections MEC shall be determined in accordance
in accordance with § 75.32, is less than 2.1.1.2 and 2.1.2.2 of appendix A to this with section 2.1.7.1 of appendix A to
90.0 percent and is greater than or equal part. The MCR shall be calculated this part.
to 80.0 percent; and parametric data according to the basic procedure 20. Section 75.39 is amended by:
establishes that the add-on emission described in section 2.1.2.1(b) of a. Revising paragraph (a);
controls were operating properly (i.e. appendix A to this part, except that the b. Revising paragraph (b);
within the range of operating parameters words ‘‘maximum potential NOX c. Revising paragraph (c);
provided in the quality assurance/ emission rate (MER)’’ shall be replaced d. Revising paragraph (d); and
e. Adding paragraph (f).
quality control program) during the with the words ‘‘maximum controlled
hour, the owner or operator may: NOX emission rate (MCR)’’ and the NOX
follows:
(i) Replace the maximum SO2 MEC shall be used instead of the NOX
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 19. 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 Hg mass emission reduction program
(ii) Replace the maximum NOX for Hg CEMS. 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.
during a monitoring system malfunction effect through December 31, 2008. The and used in the National Allowance
or when the system undergoes owner or operator shall meet the Data Base (or equivalent facility ID
maintenance); or requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), (e), number assigned by EPA, if the facility
(2) The results of the Hg analysis for and (f) of this section through December does not have an ORISPL number). Also
the paired sorbent traps are missing or 31, 2008, except as otherwise provided provide the following information for
invalid (as determined using the quality in paragraph (g) of this section. On and each unit and (as applicable) for each
assurance procedures in appendix K to after January 1, 2009, the owner or common stack and/or pipe, and each
this part). The missing data period operator shall meet the requirements of multiple stack and/or pipe involved in
begins with the hour in which the paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (h) of this the monitoring plan:
paired sorbent traps for which the Hg section only. In addition, the provisions (A) A representation of the exhaust
analysis is missing or invalid were put in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section configuration for the units in the
into service. The missing data period that support a regulatory option monitoring plan. Provide the ID number
ends at the first hour in which valid Hg provided in another section of this part of each unit and assign a unique ID
concentration data are obtained with must be followed if the regulatory number to each common stack, common
another pair of sorbent traps (i.e., the option is used prior to January 1, 2009. pipe multiple stack and/or multiple
hour at which this pair of traps was * * * * * pipe associated with the unit(s)
placed in service), or with a certified (e) * * * represented in the monitoring plan. For
backup Hg CEMS, reference method, or (1) * * * common and multiple stacks and/or
approved alternative monitoring system. (xiv) For each unit with a flow pipes, provide the activation date and
(c) Initial missing data procedures. monitor installed on a rectangular stack deactivation date (if applicable) of each
Use the missing data procedures in or duct, if a wall effects adjustment stack and/or pipe;
§ 75.31(b) until 720 hours of quality- factor (WAF) is determined and applied (B) Identification of the monitoring
assured Hg concentration data have to the hourly flow rate data: system location(s) (e.g., at the unit-level,
been collected with the sorbent trap (A) Stack or duct width at the test on the common stack, at each multiple
monitoring system(s), following initial location, ft; stack, etc.). Provide an indicator (‘‘flag’’)
certification. (B) Stack or duct depth at the test if the monitoring location is at a bypass
(d) Standard missing data procedures. location, ft; stack or in the ductwork (breeching);
Once 720 quality-assured hours of data (C) Wall effects adjustment factor (C) The stack exit height (ft) above
have been obtained with the sorbent (WAF), to the nearest 0.0001; ground level and ground level elevation
trap system(s), begin reporting the (D) Method of determining the WAF; above sea level, and the inside cross-
percent monitor data availability in (E) WAF Effective date and hour;
sectional area (ft2) at the flue exit and at
accordance with § 75.32 and switch (F) WAF no longer effective date and
the flow monitoring location (for units
from the initial missing data procedures hour (if applicable;
(G) WAF determination date; with flow monitors, only). Also use
in paragraph (c) of this section to the appropriate codes to indicate the
standard missing data procedures in (H) Number of WAF test runs;
(I) Number of Method 1 traverse material(s) of construction and the
§ 75.38. shape(s) of the stack or duct cross-
points in the WAF test;
* * * * * (J) Number of test ports in the WAF section(s) at the flue exit and (if
(f) In cases where the owner or test; and applicable) at the flow monitor location;
operator elects to use a primary Hg (K) Number of Method 1 traverse (D) The type(s) of fuel(s) fired by each
CEMS and a redundant backup sorbent points in the reference flow RATA. unit. Indicate the start and (if
trap monitoring system (or vice-versa), applicable) end date of combustion for
* * * * *
when both monitoring systems are out- (g) Contents of the monitoring plan. each type of fuel, and whether the fuel
of-service and quality-assured Hg The requirements of paragraphs (g) and is the primary, secondary, emergency, or
concentration data from a reference (h) of this section shall be met on and startup fuel;
method or approved alternative after January 1, 2009. Notwithstanding (E) The type(s) of emission controls
monitoring system are unavailable, the this requirement, the provisions of that are used to reduce SO2, NOX, Hg,
previous 720 quality-assured monitor paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section and particulate emissions from each
operating hours reported in the may be implemented prior to January 1, unit. Also provide the installation date,
electronic quarterly report under § 75.64 2009, as follows. In 2008, the owner or optimization date, and retirement date
shall be used for the required missing operator may opt to record and report (if applicable) of the emission controls,
data lookback, irrespective of whether the monitoring plan information in and indicate whether the controls are an
these data were recorded by the Hg paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section, in original installation;
CEMS, the sorbent trap system, a lieu of recording and reporting the (F) Maximum hourly heat input
reference method, or an approved information in paragraphs (e) and (f) of capacity of each unit; and
alternative monitoring system. this section. Each monitoring plan shall (G) A non-load based unit indicator (if
21. Section 75.53 is amended by: applicable) for units that do not produce
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); contain the information in paragraph
(g)(1) of this section in electronic format electrical or thermal output.
b. Replacing the phrase ‘‘(d) or (f)’’
and the information in paragraph (g)(2) (ii) For each monitored parameter
with the phrase ‘‘(f) or (h)’’ in the
of this section in hardcopy format. (e.g., SO2, NOX, flow, etc.) at each
second sentence of paragraph (a)(2);
c. Adding paragraph (e)(1)(xiv); and Electronic storage of all monitoring plan monitoring location, specify the
d. Adding paragraphs (g) and (h). information, including the hardcopy monitoring methodology and the
The revisions and additions read as portions, is permissible provided that a missing data approach for the
follows: paper copy of the information can be parameter. If the unmonitored bypass
furnished upon request for audit stack approach is used for a particular
§ 75.53 Monitoring plan. purposes. parameter, indicate this by means of an
(a) * * * (1) Electronic. appropriate code. Provide the activation
(1) The provisions of paragraphs (e) (i) The facility ORISPL number date/hour, and deactivation date/hour
and (f) of this section shall remain in developed by the Department of Energy (if applicable) for each monitoring
methodology and each missing data different formulas for the same part, for each unit or common stack on
approach. parameter are used for the primary and which hardware CEMS are installed:
(iii) For each required continuous backup monitoring systems (e.g., if the (A) Maximum hourly gross load (in
emission monitoring system, each fuel primary system measures pollutant MW, rounded to the nearest MW, or
flowmeter system, each continuous concentration on a different moisture steam load in 1000 lb/hr (i.e., klb/hr),
opacity monitoring system, and each basis from the backup system). Provide rounded to the nearest klb/hr, or
sorbent trap monitoring system (as the equation number or other thermal output in mmBtu/hr, rounded
defined in § 72.2 of this chapter), appropriate code for each emissions to the nearest mmBtu/hr), for units that
identify and describe the major formula (e.g., use code F–1 if Equation produce electrical or thermal output;
monitoring components in the F–1 in appendix F to this part is used (B) The upper and lower boundaries
monitoring system (e.g., gas analyzer, to calculate SO2 mass emissions). Also of the range of operation (as defined in
flow monitor, opacity monitor, moisture identify each emissions formula with a section 6.5.2.1 of appendix A to this
sensor, fuel flowmeter, DAHS software, unique three character alphanumeric part), expressed in megawatts,
etc.). Other important components in code. The formula effective start date/ thousands of lb/hr of steam, mmBtu/hr
the system (e.g., sample probe, PLC, hour and inactivation date/hour (as of thermal output, or ft/sec (as
data logger, etc.) may also be applicable) shall be included for each applicable);
represented in the monitoring plan, if formula. The owner or operator of a unit (C) Except for peaking units, identify
necessary. Provide the following for which the optional low mass the most frequently and second most
specific information about each emissions excepted methodology in frequently used load (or operating)
component and monitoring system: § 75.19 is being used is not required to levels (i.e., low, mid, or high) in
(A) For each required monitoring report such formulas. accordance with section 6.5.2.1 of
system: (v) For each parameter monitored appendix A to this part, expressed in
(1) Assign a unique, 3-character with CEMS, provide the following megawatts, thousands of lb/hr of steam,
alphanumeric identification code to the information: mmBtu/hr of thermal output, or ft/sec
system; (A) Measurement scale (high or low); (as applicable);
(2) Indicate the parameter monitored (B) Maximum potential value (and (D) Except for peaking units, an
by the system; method of calculation). If NOX emission indicator of whether the second most
(3) Designate the system as a primary, rate in lb/mmBtu is monitored, calculate frequently used load (or operating) level
redundant backup, non-redundant and provide the maximum potential is designated as normal in section
backup, data backup, or reference NOX emission rate in addition to the 6.5.2.1 of appendix A to this part;
method backup system, as provided in maximum potential NOX concentration; (E) The date of the data analysis used
§ 75.10(e); and (C) Maximum expected value (if to determine the normal load (or
(4) Indicate the system activation applicable) and method of calculation; operating) level(s) and the two most
date/hour and deactivation date/hour (D) Span value(s) and full-scale frequently-used load (or operating)
(as applicable). measurement range(s); levels (as applicable); and
(B) For each component of each (E) Daily calibration units of measure; (F) Activation and deactivation dates
monitoring system represented in the (F) Effective date/hour, and (if and hours, when the maximum hourly
monitoring plan: applicable) inactivation date/hour of gross load, boundaries of the range of
(1) Assign a unique, 3-character each span value; operation, normal load (or operating)
alphanumeric identification code to the (G) An indication of whether dual level(s) or two most frequently-used
component; spans are required; and load (or operating) levels change and are
(2) Indicate the manufacturer, model (H) The default high range value (if updated.
and serial number; applicable) and the maximum allowable (viii) For each unit for which CEMS
(3) Designate the component type; low-range value for this option; are not installed:
(4) For dual-span applications, (vi) If the monitoring system or (A) Maximum hourly gross load (in
indicate whether the analyzer excepted methodology provides for the MW, rounded to the nearest MW, or
component ID represents a high use of a constant, assumed, or default steam load in klb/hr, rounded to the
measurement scale, a low scale, or a value for a parameter under specific nearest klb/hr, or steam load in mmBtu/
dual range; circumstances, then include the hr, rounded to the nearest mmBtu/hr);
(5) For gas analyzers, indicate the following information for each such (B) The upper and lower boundaries
moisture basis of measurement; value for each parameter: of the range of operation (as defined in
(6) Indicate the method of sample (A) Identification of the parameter; section 6.5.2.1 of appendix A to this
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
input rates, etc. from the hourly data (I) For units using the excepted to determine the normal load level (as
recorded by the monitoring systems. methodology under § 75.19, the applicable); and
Formulas using the system and applicable SO2 emission factor. (E) Activation and deactivation dates
component ID codes for backup (vii) Unless otherwise specified in and hours, when the maximum hourly
monitoring systems are required only if section 6.5.2.1 of appendix A to this gross load, boundaries of the range of
operation, or normal load level change (v) For units monitored by a (C) For units using the 720 hour test
and are updated. continuous emission or opacity under 2.3.6 of Appendix D of this part
(ix) For each unit with a flow monitor monitoring system, stack and duct to determine the required sulfur
installed on a rectangular stack or duct, engineering diagrams showing the sampling requirements, report the
if a wall effects adjustment factor (WAF) dimensions and location of fans, turning procedures and results of the test; and
is determined and applied to the hourly vanes, air preheaters, monitor (D) For units using the 720 hour test
flow rate data: components, probes, reference method under 2.3.5 of Appendix D of this part
(A) Stack or duct width at the test sampling ports, and other equipment to determine the appropriate fuel GCV
location, ft; that affects the monitoring system sampling frequency, report the
(B) Stack or duct depth at the test location, performance, or quality control procedures used and the results of the
location, ft; checks. test.
(C) Wall effects adjustment factor (h) Contents of monitoring plan for (2) For each gas-fired peaking unit
(WAF), to the nearest 0.0001; specific situations. The following and oil-fired peaking unit for which the
(D) Method of determining the WAF; owner or operator uses the optional
(E) WAF Effective date and hour; additional information shall be included
in the monitoring plan for the specific procedures in appendix E to this part for
(F) WAF no longer effective date and
situations described: estimating NOX emission rate, the
hour (if applicable);
(G) WAF determination date; (1) For each gas-fired unit or oil-fired designated representative shall include
(H) Number of WAF test runs; unit for which the owner or operator in the monitoring plan:
(I) Number of Method 1 traverse uses the optional protocol in appendix (i) Electronic. Unit operating and
points in the WAF test; D to this part for estimating heat input capacity factor information
(J) Number of test ports in the WAF and/or SO2 mass emissions, or for each demonstrating that the unit qualifies as
test; and gas-fired or oil-fired peaking unit for a peaking unit, as defined in § 72.2 of
(K) Number of Method 1 traverse which the owner/operator uses the this chapter for the current calendar
points in the reference flow RATA. optional protocol in appendix E to this year or ozone season, including:
(2) Hardcopy. part for estimating NOX emission rate capacity factor data for three calendar
(i) Information, including (as (using a fuel flowmeter), the designated years (or ozone seasons) as specified in
applicable): identification of the test representative shall include the the definition of peaking unit in § 72.2
strategy; protocol for the relative following additional information for of this chapter; the method of
accuracy test audit; other relevant test each fuel flowmeter system in the qualification used; and an indication of
information; calibration gas levels monitoring plan: whether the data are actual or projected
(percent of span) for the calibration (i) Electronic. data.
error test and linearity check; (A) Parameter monitored; (ii) Hardcopy.
calculations for determining maximum (B) Type of fuel measured, maximum (A) A protocol containing methods
potential concentration, maximum fuel flow rate, units of measure, and used to perform the baseline or periodic
expected concentration (if applicable), basis of maximum fuel flow rate (i.e., NOX emission test; and
maximum potential flow rate, maximum (B) Unit operating parameters related
upper range value or unit maximum) for
potential NOX emission rate, and span; to NOX formation by the unit.
each fuel flowmeter;
and apportionment strategies under (3) For each gas-fired unit and diesel-
(C) Test method used to check the fired unit or unit with a wet flue gas
§§ 75.10 through 75.18.
(ii) Description of site locations for accuracy of each fuel flowmeter; pollution control system for which the
each monitoring component in the (D) Monitoring system identification designated representative claims an
continuous emission or opacity code; opacity monitoring exemption under
monitoring systems, including (E) The method used to demonstrate § 75.14, the designated representative
schematic diagrams and engineering that the unit qualifies for monthly GCV shall include in the hardcopy
drawings specified in paragraphs sampling or for daily or annual fuel monitoring plan the information
(e)(2)(iv) and (e)(2)(v) of this section and sampling for sulfur content, as specified under § 75.14(b), (c), or (d),
any other documentation that applicable; and demonstrating that the unit qualifies for
demonstrates each monitor location (F) Activation date/hour and (if the exemption.
meets the appropriate siting criteria. applicable) inactivation date/hour for (4) For each unit using the low mass
(iii) A data flow diagram denoting the the fuel flowmeter system; emissions excepted methodology under
complete information handling path (ii) Hardcopy. § 75.19 the designated representative
from output signals of CEMS (A) A schematic diagram identifying shall include the following additional
components to final reports. the relationship between the unit, all information in the monitoring plan that
(iv) For units monitored by a fuel supply lines, the fuel flowmeter(s), accompanies the initial certification
continuous emission or opacity and the stack(s). The schematic diagram application:
monitoring system, a schematic diagram must depict the installation location of (i) Electronic. For each low mass
identifying entire gas handling system each fuel flowmeter and the fuel emissions unit, report the results of the
from boiler to stack for all affected units, sampling location(s). Comprehensive analysis performed to qualify as a low
using identification numbers for units, and/or separate schematic diagrams mass emissions unit under § 75.19(c).
monitoring systems and components, shall be used to describe groups of units This report will include either the
and stacks corresponding to the using a common pipe; previous three years actual or projected
identification numbers provided in (B) For units using the optional emissions. The following items should
paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(iii) of this default SO2 emission rate for ‘‘pipeline be included:
section. The schematic diagram must natural gas’’ or ‘‘natural gas’’ in (A) Current calendar year of
depict stack height and the height of any appendix D to this part, the information application;
monitor locations. Comprehensive and/ on the sulfur content of the gaseous fuel (B) Type of qualification;
or separate schematic diagrams shall be used to demonstrate compliance with (C) Years one, two, and three;
used to describe groups of units using either section 2.3.1.4 or 2.3.2.4 of (D) Annual and/or ozone season
a common stack. appendix D to this part; measured, estimated or projected NOX
mass emissions for years one, two, and (C) A statement that the unit burns used, and an indication of whether the
three; only gaseous fuel(s) and/or fuel oil and data are actual or projected data.
(E) Annual measured, estimated or a list of the fuels that are burned or a (6) For each monitoring location with
projected SO2 mass emissions (if statement that the unit is projected to a stack flow monitor that is exempt from
applicable) for years one, two, and burn only gaseous fuel(s) and/or fuel oil performing 3-load flow RATAs (peaking
three; and and a list of the fuels that are projected units, bypass stacks, or by petition) the
(F) Annual or ozone season operating to be burned; designated representative shall include
hours for years one, two, and three. in the monitoring plan an indicator of
(ii) Hardcopy. (D) A statement that the unit meets
the applicability requirements in exemption from 3-load flow RATA
(A) A schematic diagram identifying
using the appropriate exemption code.
the relationship between the unit, all §§ 75.19(a) and (b); and
fuel supply lines and tanks, any fuel 22. Section 75.57 is amended by:
(E) Any unit historical actual, a. Adding the phrase ‘‘, or mmBtu/hr
flowmeter(s), and the stack(s). estimated and projected emissions data
Comprehensive and/or separate of thermal output, rounded to the
and calculated emissions data nearest mmBtu/hr’’ after the phrase
schematic diagrams shall be used to demonstrating that the affected unit
describe groups of units using a ‘‘rounded to the nearest 1000 lb/hr’’, in
qualifies as a low mass emissions unit paragraph (b)(3); and
common pipe; under §§ 75.19(a) and 75.19(b).
(B) For units which use the long term b. Revising Table 4a in paragraph
fuel flow methodology under (5) For qualification as a gas-fired (c)(4)(iv).
§ 75.19(c)(3), the designated unit, as defined in § 72.2 of this part, the The revisions and additions read as
representative must provide a diagram designated representative shall include follows:
of the fuel flow to each affected unit or in the monitoring plan, in electronic
format, the following: current calendar § 75.57 General recordkeeping provisions.
group of units and describe in detail the
procedures used to determine the long year, fuel usage data for three calendar * * * * *
term fuel flow for a unit or group of years (or ozone seasons) as specified in (c) * * *
units for each fuel combusted by the the definition of gas-fired in § 72.2 of (4) * * *
unit or group of units; this part, the method of qualification (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 con-
centration, or moisture percentage for the hour before and the hour following a missing data period; or (b) the arithmetic av-
erage of all NOX concentration, NOX emission rate, or flow rate values at the corresponding load range (or a higher load
range), or at the corresponding operational bin (non-load-based units, only); or (c) the arithmetic average of all previous
NOX concentration, NOX emission rate, or flow rate values (non-load-based units, only).
8 ........................ 90th percentile hourly SO2 concentration, CO2 concentration, NOX concentration, flow rate, moisture percentage, or NOX
emission rate or 10th percentile hourly O2 concentration or moisture percentage in the applicable lookback period (moisture
missing data algorithm depends on which equations are used for emissions and heat input).
9 ........................ 95th percentile hourly SO2 concentration, CO2 concentration, NOX concentration, flow rate, moisture percentage, or NOX
emission rate or 5th percentile hourly O2 concentration or moisture percentage in the applicable lookback period (moisture
missing data algorithm depends on which equations are used for emissions and heat input).
10 ...................... Maximum hourly SO2 concentration, CO2 concentration, NOX concentration, flow rate, moisture percentage, or NOX emission
rate or minimum hourly O2 concentration or moisture percentage in the applicable lookback period (moisture missing data
algorithm depends on which equations are used for emissions and heat input).
11 ...................... Average of hourly flow rates, NOX concentrations or NOX emission rates in corresponding load range, for the applicable
lookback period. For non-load-based units, report either the average flow rate, NOX concentration or NOX emission rate in
the applicable lookback period, or the average flow rate or NOX value at the corresponding operational bin (if operational
bins are used).
12 ...................... Maximum potential concentration of SO2, maximum potential concentration of CO2, maximum potential concentration of NOX
maximum potential flow rate, maximum potential NOX emission rate, maximum potential moisture percentage, minimum po-
tential O2 concentration or minimum potential moisture percentage, as determined using § 72.2 of this chapter and section
2.1 of appendix A to this part (moisture missing data algorithm depends on which equations are used for emissions and
heat input).
13 ...................... Maximum expected concentration of SO2, maximum expected concentration of NOX, 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).
TABLE 4A.—CODES FOR METHOD OF EMISSIONS AND FLOW DETERMINATION—Continued

Code Hourly emissions/flow measurement or estimation method
15 ...................... 1.25 times the maximum hourly controlled SO2 concentration, Hg concentration, NOX concentration at the corresponding load
or operational bin, or NOX emission rate at the corresponding load or operational bin, in the applicable lookback period
(See § 75.34(a)(5)).
16 ...................... SO2 concentration value of 2.0 ppm during hours when only ‘‘very low sulfur fuel’’, as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter, is com-
busted.
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 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 emis-
sion controls 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 dis-
charged downstream of the NOX emission controls through an unmonitored bypass stack, and the add-on NOX emission
controls are confirmed to be operating properly.
25 ...................... Maximum potential NOX emission rate (MER). (Use only when a NOX concentration full-scale exceedance occurs and the dil-
uent monitor is unavailable.)
26 ...................... 1.0 mmBtu/hr substituted for Heat Input Rate for an operating hour in which the calculated Heat Input Rate is zero or nega-
tive.
32 ...................... Hourly Hg concentration determined from analysis of a single trap multiplied by a factor of 1.222 when one of the paired traps
is invalidated or damaged (See Appendix K § 8).
33 ...................... Hourly Hg concentration determined from the trap resulting in the higher Hg concentration when the relative deviation be-
tween the paired traps is greater than 10 percent (See Appendix K § 8).
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.
* * * * * p. Replacing the word ‘‘Component’’ (xi) Heat input rate formula ID

23. Section 75.58 is amended by: with the word ‘‘Monitoring’’, in (required beginning January 1, 2009).
a. Revising paragraph (b)(3) paragraph (f)(2)(x). * * * * *
introductory text; The revisions and additions read as (f) * * *
b. Removing paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) and follows: (1) * * *
(b)(3)(iv); (iii) Fuel type (pipeline natural gas,
c. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ from § 75.58 General recordkeeping provisions natural gas, other gaseous fuel, residual
paragraph (c)(1)(xii); for specific situations. oil, or diesel fuel). If more than one type
d. Replacing the period with a * * * * * of fuel is combusted in the hour, either:
semicolon and adding the word ‘‘and’’ (b) * * * (A) Indicate the fuel type which
to the end of the paragraph, in (3) Except as otherwise provided in results in the highest emission factors
paragraph (c)(1)(xiii); § 75.34(d), for units with add-on SO2 or for NOX (this option is in effect through
e. Adding paragraph (c)(1)(xiv); NOX emission controls following the December 31, 2008); or
f. Replacing the period with a provisions of § 75.34(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3) (B) Indicate the fuel type resulting in
semicolon and adding the word ‘‘and’’ or (a)(5), and for units with add-on Hg the highest emission factor for each
to the end of the paragraph, in emission controls, the owner or operator parameter (SO2, NOX emission rate, and
paragraph (c)(4)(x); shall record: CO2) separately (this option is required
g. Adding paragraph (c)(4)(xi); * * * * * on and after January 1, 2009);
h. Replacing the period with a * * * * *
(c) * * *
semicolon and adding the word ‘‘and’’ (xiii) Base or peak load indicator (as
to the end of the paragraph, in (1) * * *
applicable); and
paragraph (d)(1)(x); (xiv) Heat input formula ID and SO2 (xiv) Multiple fuel flag.
i. Adding paragraph (d)(1)(xi); Formula ID (required beginning January
* * * * *
j. Replacing the period with a 1, 2009). 24. Section 75.59 is amended by:
semicolon and adding the word ‘‘and’’ * * * * * a. Adding the phrase ‘‘(on and after
to the end of the paragraph, in (4) * * * January 1, 2009, only the component
paragraph (d)(2)(x); (xi) Heat input formula ID and SO2 identification code is required)’’ after
k. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(xi); Formula ID (required beginning January the word ‘‘code’’, in paragraph (a)(1)(i);
l. Revising paragraph (f)(1)(iii); 1, 2009). b. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(viii);
m. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ at the * * * * * c. Replacing the phrase ‘‘For the
end of paragraph (f)(1)(xi); qualifying test for off-line calibration,

n. Replacing the period with a (d) * * *
the owner or operator shall indicate’’
semicolon at the end of paragraph (1) * * * with the phrase ‘‘Indication of’’, in
(f)(1)(xii); (xi) Heat input rate formula ID paragraph (a)(1)(xi);
o. Adding paragraphs (f)(1)(xiii) and (required beginning January 1, 2009). d. Adding the phrase ‘‘(after January
(f)(1)(xiv); and (2) * * * 1, 2009, only the component
identification code is required)’’ after bb. Replacing the period with a heat input, the owner or operator shall
the word ‘‘code’’, in paragraph (a)(2)(i); semicolon and adding the word ‘‘and’’ record the following information for the
e. Adding the phrase ‘‘(on and after at the end of paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(M); cycle time test:
January 1, 2009, only the component cc. Adding paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(N); * * * * *
identification code is required)’’ after dd. Adding the phrase ‘‘(on and after (7) * * *
the word ‘‘code’’, in paragraph (a)(3)(i); January 1, 2009, component (ix) For a unit with a flow monitor
f. Adding the phrase ‘‘(only span scale identification codes shall be reported in installed on a rectangular stack or duct,
is required on and after January 1, addition to the monitoring system if a site-specific default or measured
2009)’’ after the word ‘‘scale’’, in identification code)’’ after the second wall effects adjustment factor (WAF) is
paragraph (a)(3)(ii); occurrence of the word ‘‘system’’ in used to correct the stack gas volumetric
g. Adding the phrase ‘‘(on and after paragraphs (b)(5)(i)(B), (b)(5)(ii)(B), and flow rate data to account for velocity
January 1, 2009, only the system (b)(5)(iii)(B); decay near the stack or duct wall, the
identification code is required)’’ after ee. Adding the phrase ‘‘This owner or operator shall keep records of
the word ‘‘code’’, in paragraph (a)(4)(i); requirement remains in effect through the following for each flow RATA
h. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ after the December 31, 2008’’ after the word performed with EPA Method 2,
semicolon at the end of paragraph ‘‘run’’, in paragraph (b)(5)(i)(H); subsequent to the WAF determination:
(a)(4)(vi)(L); ff. Adding the phrase ‘‘(as applicable). (A) Monitoring system ID;
i. Replacing the period with a This requirement remains in effect (B) Test number;
semicolon and adding the word ‘‘and’’ through December 31, 2008’’ after the (C) Operating level;
at the end of paragraph (a)(4)(vi)(M); word ‘‘level’’, in paragraph (b)(5)(iv)(A); (D) RATA end date and time;
j. Adding paragraph (a)(4)(vi)(N); gg. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ after (E) Number of Method 1 traverse
k. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ after the the semicolon at the end of paragraph points; and
semicolon, at the end of paragraph (b)(5)(iv)(G); (F) Wall effects adjustment factor
(a)(4)(vii)(K); hh. Replacing the period with a (WAF), to the nearest 0.0001.
l. Replacing the period with a semicolon and adding the word ‘‘and’’ (x) For each RATA run using Method
semicolon and adding the word ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (b)(5)(iv)(H); 29 to determine Hg concentration:
at the end of paragraph (a)(4)(vii)(L); ii. Adding paragraph (b)(5)(iv)(I); (A) Percent CO2 and O2 in the stack
m. Adding paragraph (a)(4)(vii)(M); jj. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ after the gas, dry basis;
n. Revising paragraph (a)(6) semicolon at the end of paragraph (B) Moisture content of the stack gas
introductory text; (d)(1)(xi); (percent H2O);
o. Adding the phrase ‘‘(on and after kk. Replacing the period with a (C) Average stack gas temperature
January 1, 2009, only the component semicolon and adding the word ‘‘and’’ (°F);
identification code is required)’’ after at the end of paragraph (d)(1)(xii); (D) Dry gas volume metered (dscm);
the word ‘‘code’’, in paragraph (a)(6)(i); ll. Adding paragraph (d)(1)(xiii);
(E) Percent isokinetic;
p. Replace the phrase ‘‘Cycle time mm. Removing the phrase ‘‘,
(F) Particulate Hg collected in the
result for the entire system’’ with the multiplied by 1.15, if appropriate’’ from
front half of the sampling train,
phrase ‘‘Total cycle time’’, in paragraph paragraph (d)(2)(iii);
corrected for the front-half blank value
(a)(6)(ix); nn. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ after
(µg); and
q. Adding paragraphs (a)(7)(ix) and the semicolon at the end of paragraph
(G) Total vapor phase Hg collected in
(a)(7)(x); (d)(2)(iv);
r. Revising paragraph (a)(8); oo. Replacing the period with a the back half of the sampling train,
s. Removing and reserving paragraph semicolon at the end of paragraph corrected for the back-half blank value
(a)(12)(iii); (d)(2)(v); and (µg).
t. Removing the number ‘‘(2)’’ from pp. Adding paragraphs (d)(2)(vi), (8) For each certified continuous
the paragraph identifier ‘‘§ 75.64(a)(2)’’ (d)(2)(vii), (e) and (f). emission monitoring system, continuous
in the second sentence of paragraph The revisions and additions read as opacity monitoring system, excepted
(a)(13); follows: monitoring system, or alternative
u. Adding the phrase ‘‘(on and after monitoring system, the date and
January 1, 2009, only the component § 75.59 Certification, quality, assurance, description of each event which
and quality control record provisions. requires certification, recertification, or
identification code is required)’’ after
the word ‘‘tested’’, in paragraphs * * * * * certain diagnostic testing of the system
(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(i); (a) * * * and the date and type of each test
v. Adding the phrase ‘‘(on and after (1) * * * performed. If the conditional data
January 1, 2009, only the monitoring (viii) For 7-day calibration error tests, validation procedures of § 75.20(b)(3)
system identification code is required)’’ a test number and reason for test; are to be used to validate and report
after the word ‘‘code’’, in paragraph * * * * * data prior to the completion of the
(b)(4)(i)(A); (4) * * * required certification, recertification, or
w. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ after the (vi) * * * diagnostic testing, the date and hour of
semicolon at the end of paragraph (N) Test number. the probationary calibration error test
(b)(4)(i)(H); (vii) * * * shall be reported to mark the beginning
x. Replacing the period with a (M) An indicator (‘‘flag’’) if separate of conditional data validation.
semicolon and adding the word ‘‘and’’ reference ratios are calculated for each * * * * *
at the end of paragraph (b)(4)(i)(I); multiple stack. (b) * * *
y. Adding paragraph (b)(4)(i)(J); * * * * * (4) * * *

z. Revising paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(A), (6) For each SO2, NOX, Hg, or CO2 (i) * * *
(b)(4)(ii)(B), and (b)(4)(ii)(F); pollutant concentration monitor, each (J) Test number.
aa. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ after component of a NOX-diluent continuous (ii) * * *
the semicolon at the end of paragraph emission monitoring system, and each (A) Completion date and hour of most
(b)(4)(ii)(L); CO2 or O2 monitor used to determine recent primary element inspection or
test number of the most recent primary 25. Section 75.60 is amended by this part, or for excepted monitoring
element inspection (as applicable); (on adding paragraph (b)(8) to read as systems under appendix E to this part,
and after January 1, 2009, the test follows: except as provided in paragraphs
number of the most recent primary (a)(1)(iii), (a)(1)(iv) and (a)(4) of this
element inspection is required in lieu of § 75.60 General provisions. section.* * *
the completion date and hour for the * * * * * * * * * *
most recent primary element (b) * * * (3) Unit shutdown and
inspection); (8) Routine retest reports for Hg low
recommencement of commercial
(B) Completion date and hour of most mass emissions units. If requested in
operation. For an affected unit that will
recent flow meter of transmitter writing (or by electronic mail) by the
be shutdown on the relevant
accuracy test or test number of the most applicable EPA Regional Office,
compliance date specified in § 75.4 or in
recent flowmeter or transmitter accuracy appropriate State, and/or appropriate
a State or Federal pollutant mass
test (as applicable); (on and after local air pollution control agency, the
emissions reduction program that
January 1, 2009, the test number of the designated representative shall submit a
adopts the monitoring and reporting
most recent flowmeter or transmitter hardcopy report for a semiannual or
requirements of this part, if the owner
accuracy test is required in lieu of the annual retest required under
or operator is relying on the provisions
completion date and hour for the most § 75.81(d)(4)(iii) for a Hg low mass
in § 75.4(d) to postpone certification
recent flowmeter or transmitter accuracy emissions unit, within 45 days after
testing, the designated representative for
test); completing the test or within 15 days of
the unit shall submit notification of unit
receiving the request, whichever is later.
* * * * * shutdown and recommencement of
The designated representative shall
(F) Average load, in megawatts, 1000 commercial operation as follows:
report, at a minimum, the following (i) For planned unit shutdowns (e.g.,
lb/hr of steam, or mmBtu/hr thermal
hardcopy information to the applicable extended maintenance outages), written
output;
EPA Regional Office, appropriate State, notification of the planned shutdown
* * * * * and/or appropriate local air pollution
(N) Monitoring system identification date shall be provided at least 21 days
control agency that requested the prior to the applicable compliance date,
code. * * * hardcopy report: A summary of the test and written notification of the planned
* * * * * results; the raw reference method data date of recommencement of commercial
(5) * * * for each test run; the raw data and operation shall be provided at least 21
(iv) * * * results of all pretest, post-test, and post- days in advance of unit restart. If the
(I) Component identification code run quality-assurance checks of the actual shutdown date or the actual date
(required on and after January 1, 2009). reference method; the raw data and of recommencement of commercial
* * * * * results of moisture measurements made operation differs from the planned date,
(d) * * * during the test runs (if applicable); written notice of the actual date shall be
(1) * * * diagrams illustrating the test and sample submitted no later than 7 days following
(xiii) An indicator (‘‘flag’’) if the run point locations; a copy of the test the actual date of shutdown or of
is used to calculate the highest 3-run protocol used; calibration certificates for recommencement of commercial
average NOX emission rate at any load the gas standards or standard solutions operation, as applicable;
level. used in the testing; laboratory (ii) For unplanned unit shutdowns
(2) * * * calibrations of the source sampling (e.g., forced outages), written
(vi) Indicator of whether the testing equipment; and the names of the key notification of the actual shutdown date
was done at base load, peak load or both personnel involved in the test program, shall be provided no more than 7 days
(if appropriate); and including test team members, plant after the shutdown, and written
(vii) The default NOX emission rate contact persons, agency representatives notification of the planned date of
for peak load hours (if applicable). and test observers. recommencement of commercial
* * * * * * * * * * operation shall be provided at least 21
(e) Excepted monitoring for Hg low 26. Section 75.61 is amended by: days in advance of unit restart. If the
mass emission units under § 75.81(b). a. Revising the first sentence of actual date of recommencement of
For qualifying coal-fired units using the paragraph (a)(1) introductory text; commercial operation differs from the
alternative low mass emission b. Revising paragraph (a)(3); expected date, written notice of the
methodology under § 75.81(b), the c. Revising the first sentence of actual date shall be submitted no later
owner or operator shall record the data paragraph (a)(5) introductory text; and than 7 days following the actual date of
elements described in § 75.59(a)(7)(vii), d. Adding paragraphs (a)(7) and (a)(8)
recommencement of commercial
§ 75.59(a)(7)(viii), or § 75.59(a)(7)(x), as operation.
follows:
applicable, for each run of each Hg * * * * *
emission test and re-test required under § 75.61 Notifications. (5) Periodic relative accuracy test
§ 75.81(c)(1) or § 75.81(d)(4)(iii). (a) * * * audits, appendix E retests, and low
(f) DAHS Verification. For each DAHS (1) Initial certification and mass emissions unit retests. The owner
(missing data and formula) verification recertification test notifications. The or operator or designated representative
that is required for initial certification, owner or operator or designated of an affected unit shall submit written
recertification, or for certain diagnostic representative for an affected unit shall notice of the date of periodic relative
testing of a monitoring system, record submit written notification of initial accuracy testing performed under
the date and hour that the DAHS
certification tests and revised test dates section 2.3.1 of appendix B to this part,
verification is successfully completed. as specified in § 75.20 for continuous of periodic retesting performed under
(This requirement only applies to units emission monitoring systems, for the section 2.2 of appendix E to this part, of
that report monitoring plan data in excepted Hg monitoring methodology periodic retesting of low mass emissions
accordance with § 75.53(g) and (h).) under § 75.81(b), for alternative units performed under
* * * * * monitoring systems under subpart E of § 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(D), and of periodic
retesting of Hg low mass emissions units § 75.62 Monitoring plan submittals. under § 75.64. Notwithstanding the
performed under § 75.81(d)(4)(iii), no (a) * * * requirement of § 75.59(e), for DAHS
later than 21 days prior to the first (1) Electronic. Using the format (missing data and formula) verifications,
scheduled day of testing. * * * specified in paragraph (c) of this no hardcopy submittal is required; the
* * * * * section, the designated representative owner or operator shall keep these test
(7) Long-term cold storage and for an affected unit shall submit a results on-site in a format suitable for
recommencement of commercial complete, electronic, up-to-date inspection.
operation. The designated monitoring plan file (except for * * * * *
representative for an affected unit that is hardcopy portions identified in 29. Section 75.64 is amended by:
placed into long-term cold storage that paragraph (a)(2) of this section) to the a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory
is relying on the provisions in § 75.4(d) Administrator as follows: no later than text;
or § 75.64(a), either to postpone 21 days prior to the initial certification b. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(xiv);
tests; at the time of each certification or c. Removing paragraph (a)(8);
certification testing or to discontinue d. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(3)
the submittal of quarterly reports during recertification application submission;
and (prior to or concurrent with) the through (a)(7) as paragraphs (a)(8)
the period of long-term cold storage, through (a)(12), and redesignating
shall provide written notification of submittal of the electronic quarterly
report for a reporting quarter where an paragraphs (a)(9) through (a)(11) as
long-term cold storage status and paragraphs (a)(13) through (a)(15);
recommencement of commercial update of the electronic monitoring plan
information is required, either under e. Adding new paragraphs (a)(3)
operation as follows: through (a)(7); and
(i) Whenever an affected unit has been § 75.53(b) or elsewhere in this part.
f. Replacing the citation ‘‘§ 75.59’’,
placed into long-term cold storage, * * * * * with ‘‘§ 75.58(f)(2)’’ at the end of newly
written notification of the date and hour 28. Section 75.63 is amended by: designated paragraph (a)(14).
that the unit was shutdown and a a. Removing the phrase ‘‘and a The revisions and additions read as
statement from the designated hardcopy certification application form follows:
representative stating that the shutdown (EPA form 7610–14)’’ from paragraph
is expected to last for at least two years (a)(1)(i)(A); § 75.64 Quarterly reports.
from that date, in accordance with the b. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A); (a) Electronic submission. The
definition for long-term cold storage of c. Adding the phrase ‘‘or designated representative for an affected
a unit as provided in § 72.2. § 75.53(h)(4)(ii) (as applicable)’’ after the unit shall electronically report the data
(ii) Whenever an affected unit that has identifier ‘‘§ 75.53(f)(5)(ii)’’, in and information in paragraphs (a), (b),
been placed into long-term cold storage paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B); and (c) of this section to the
is expected to resume operation, written d. Removing the phrase ‘‘and a Administrator quarterly, beginning with
notification shall be submitted 45 hardcopy certification application form the data from the earlier of the calendar
calendar days prior to the planned date (EPA form 7610–14)’’ after the word quarter corresponding to the date of
of recommencement of commercial ‘‘section’’, in paragraph (a)(2)(i); provisional certification or the calendar
operation. If the actual date of e. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(iii); quarter corresponding to the relevant
recommencement of commercial f. Removing and reserving paragraph deadline for initial certification in
operation differs from the expected date, (b)(2)(iii); § 75.4(a), (b), or (c). The initial quarterly
written notice of the actual date shall be g. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(iv) by report shall contain hourly data
submitted no later than 7 days following adding the words ‘‘certifying the beginning with the hour of provisional
the actual date of recommencement of accuracy of the submission’’ after the certification or the hour corresponding
commercial operation. word ‘‘signature’’. to the relevant certification deadline,
(8) Certification deadline date for new The revisions read as follows: whichever is earlier. For an affected unit
or newly affected units. The designated subject to § 75.4(d) that is shutdown on
§ 75.63 Initial Certification or the relevant compliance date in § 75.4(a)
representative of a new or newly Recertification Application.
affected unit shall provide notification or has been placed in long-term cold
(a) * * * storage (as defined in § 72.2 of this
of the date on which the relevant (1) * * *
deadline for initial certification is chapter), quarterly reports are not
(ii) * * * required. In such cases, the owner or
reached, either as provided in § 75.4(b) (A) To the Administrator, the
or § 75.4(c), or as specified in a State or operator shall submit quarterly reports
electronic low mass emission for the unit beginning with the data
Federal SO2, NOX, or Hg mass emission qualification information required by
reduction program that incorporates by from the quarter in which the unit
§ 75.53(f)(5)(i) or § 75.53(h)(4)(i) (as recommences commercial operation
reference, or otherwise adopts, the applicable) and paragraph (b)(1)(i) of
monitoring, recordkeeping, and (where the initial quarterly report
this section; and contains hourly data beginning with the
reporting requirements of subpart F, G,
H, or I of this part. The notification shall * * * * * first hour of recommenced commercial
be submitted no later than 7 calendar (2) * * * operation of the unit). For units placed
days after the applicable certification (iii) Notwithstanding the into long-term cold storage during a
deadline is reached. requirements of paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and reporting quarter, the exemption from
(a)(2)(ii) of this section, for an event for submitting quarterly reports begins with
* * * * * which the Administrator determines the calendar quarter following the date
27. Section 75.62 is amended by: that only diagnostic tests (see § 75.20(b)) that the unit is placed into long-term
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); and
are required rather than recertification cold storage. For any provisionally-
b. Replacing the number ‘‘45’’ with testing, no hardcopy submittal is certified monitoring system,
the number ‘‘21’’ before the phrase required; however, the results of all § 75.20(a)(3) shall apply for initial
‘‘days prior’’, in paragraph (a)(2). diagnostic test(s) shall be submitted certifications, and § 75.20(b)(5) shall
The revisions and additions read as prior to or concurrent with the apply for recertifications. Each
follows: electronic quarterly report required electronic report must be submitted to
the Administrator within 30 days data report for the appropriate quarter in problems unrelated to monitor
following the end of each calendar which the update is required. performance; and
quarter. Prior to January 1, 2008, each (5) Except for the daily calibration (xii) Supplementary RATA
electronic report shall include for each error test data, daily interference check, information required under
affected unit (or group of units using a and off-line calibration demonstration § 75.59(a)(7)(i) through § 75.59(a)(7)(v),
common stack), the information information required in § 75.59(a)(1) except that:
provided in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and and (2), which must always be (A) The applicable data elements
(a)(8) through (a)(15) of this section. submitted with the quarterly report, the under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(A) through (T)
During the time period of January 1, certification, quality assurance, and and under § 75.59(a)(7)(iii)(A) through
2008 to January 1, 2009, each electronic quality control information required in (M) shall be reported for flow RATAs at
report shall include either the § 75.59 shall either be submitted prior to circular or rectangular stacks (or ducts)
information provided in paragraphs or concurrent with the submittal of the in which angular compensation for yaw
(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(8) through (a)(15) of relevant quarterly electronic data report. and/or pitch angles is used (i.e., Method
this section or the information provided (6) The information and hourly data 2F or 2G), with or without wall effects
in paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(15). On required in §§ 75.57 through 75.59, and adjustments;
and after January 1, 2009, the owner or daily calibration error test data, daily (B) The applicable data elements
operator shall meet the requirements of interference check, and off-line under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(A) through (T)
paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(15) of this calibration demonstration information and under § 75.59(a)(7)(iii)(A) through
section only. Each electronic report required in § 75.59(a)(1) and (2). (M) shall be reported for any flow RATA
shall also include the date of report (7) Notwithstanding the requirements run at a circular stack in which Method
generation. of paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(6) of this 2 is used and a wall effects adjustment
* * * * * section, the following information is factor is determined by direct
(2) * * * excluded from electronic reporting: measurement;
(xiii) Supplementary RATA (i) Descriptions of adjustments,
(C) The data under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(T)
information required under corrective action, and maintenance;
shall be reported for all flow RATAs at
§ 75.59(a)(7), except that: (ii) Information which is incompatible
circular stacks in which Method 2 is
(A) The applicable data elements with electronic reporting (e.g., field data
used and a default wall effects
under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(A) through (T) sheets, lab analyses, quality control
adjustment factor is applied; and
and under § 75.59(a)(7)(iii)(A) through plan);
(iii) Opacity data listed in § 75.57(f), (D) The data under
(M) shall be reported for flow RATAs at
and in § 75.59(a)(8); § 75.59(a)(7)(vii)(A) through (F) shall be
circular or rectangular stacks (or ducts)
(iv) For units with SO2 or NOX add- reported for all flow RATAs at
in which angular compensation for yaw
on emission controls that do not elect to rectangular stacks or ducts in which
and/or pitch angles is used (i.e., Method
use the approved site-specific Method 2 is used and a wall effects
2F or 2G), with or without wall effects
parametric monitoring procedures for adjustment factor is applied.
adjustments;
(B) The applicable data elements calculation of substitute data, the * * * * *
under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(A) through (T) information in § 75.58(b)(3); § 75.66 [Amended]
and under § 75.59(a)(7)(iii)(A) through (v) Information required by § 75.57(h)
(M) shall be reported for any flow RATA concerning the causes of any missing 30. Section 75.66 is amended by
run at a circular stack in which Method data periods and the actions taken to removing and reserving paragraph (f).
2 is used and a wall effects adjustment cure such causes; 31. Section 75.71 is amended by:
factor is determined by direct (vi) Hardcopy monitoring plan a. In paragraph (a)(1), by replacing the
measurement; information required by § 75.53 and second occurrence of the phrase ‘‘CO2
(C) The data under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(T) hardcopy test data and results required diluent gas monitor’’ with the phrase
shall be reported for all flow RATAs at by § 75.59; ‘‘CO2 diluent gas monitoring system’’;
circular stacks in which Method 2 is (vii) Records of flow monitor and b. Replacing the phrase ‘‘O2 or CO2
used and a default wall effects moisture monitoring system polynomial diluent gas monitor’’ with the phrase
adjustment factor is applied; and equations, coefficients, or ‘‘K’’ factors ‘‘O2 or CO2 monitoring system’’, in
(D) The data under § 75.59(a)(7)(ix)(A) required by § 75.59(a)(5)(vi) or paragraph (a)(2); and
through (F) shall be reported for all flow § 75.59(a)(5)(vii); c. Revising paragraph (e).
RATAs at rectangular stacks or ducts in (viii) Daily fuel sampling information The revision reads as follows:
which Method 2 is used and a wall required by § 75.58(c)(3)(i) for units
effects adjustment factor is applied. using assumed values under appendix § 75.71 Specific provisions for monitoring
(3) Facility identification information, D; NOX and heat input for the purpose of
including: (ix) Information required by calculating NOX mass emissions.
(i) Facility/ORISPL number; §§ 75.59(b)(1)(vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), and * * * * *
(ii) Calendar quarter and year for the (xiii), and (b)(2)(iii) and (iv) concerning (e) Low mass emissions units.
data contained in the report; and fuel flowmeter accuracy tests and Notwithstanding the requirements of
(iii) Version of the electronic data transmitter/transducer accuracy tests; paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, for
reporting format used for the report. (x) Stratification test results required an affected unit using the low mass
(4) In accordance with § 75.62(a)(1), if as part of the RATA supplementary emissions (LME) unit under § 75.19 to
any monitoring plan information records under § 75.59(a)(7); estimate hourly NOX emission rate, heat
required in § 75.53 requires an update, (xi) Data and results of RATAs that input and NOX mass emissions, the
either under § 75.53(b) or elsewhere in are aborted or invalidated due to owner or operator shall calculate the
this part, submission of the electronic problems with the reference method or ozone season NOX mass emissions by
monitoring plan update shall be operational problems with the unit and summing all of the estimated hourly
completed prior to or concurrent with data and results of linearity checks that NOX mass emissions in the ozone
the submittal of the quarterly electronic are aborted or invalidated due to season, as determined under
§ 75.19(c)(4)(ii)(A), and dividing this applicable, prior to January 1, 2009, generation. Prior to January 1, 2009,
sum by 2000 lb/ton. each monitoring plan shall contain the each report shall include the facility
* * * * * information in § 75.53(f)(1)(i), (f)(2)(i), information provided in paragraphs
32. Section 75.72 is amended by: and (f)(4) or § 75.53(h)(1)(i), and (h)(2)(i) (f)(1)(i)(A) and (B), for each affected unit
a. Revising the section heading and in electronic format and the information or group of units monitored at a
the introductory text; and in § 75.53(f)(1)(ii) and (f)(2)(ii) or common stack. On and after January 1,
b. Removing and reserving paragraph § 75.53(h)(1)(ii) and (h)(2)(ii) in 2009, only the facility identification
(f). hardcopy format. On and after January information provided in paragraph
The revisions read as follows: 1, 2009, each monitoring plan shall (f)(1)(i)(A) is required.
contain the information in * * * * *
§ 75.72 Determination of NOX mass
§ 75.53(h)(1)(i), and (h)(2)(i) in (ii) * * *
emissions for common stack and multiple
stack configurations. electronic format and the information in (K) Supplementary RATA information
§ 75.53(h)(1)(ii) and (h)(2)(ii) in required under § 75.59(a)(7), except that:
The owner or operator of an affected
hardcopy format, only. For units using (1) The applicable data elements
unit shall either: calculate hourly NOX
the low mass emissions excepted under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(A) through (T)
mass emissions (in lbs) by multiplying
methodology under § 75.19, prior to and under § 75.59(a)(7)(iii)(A) through
the hourly NOX emission rate (in lbs/
January 1, 2009, the monitoring plan (M) shall be reported for flow RATAs at
mmBtu) by the hourly heat input rate
shall include the additional information circular or rectangular stacks (or ducts)
(in mmBtu/hr) and the unit or stack
in § 75.53(f)(5)(i) and (f)(5)(ii) or in which angular compensation for yaw
operating time (as defined in § 72.2); or,
§ 75.53(h)(4)(i) and (h)(4)(ii). On and and/or pitch angles is used (i.e., Method
as provided in paragraph (e) of this
after January 1, 2009, for units using the 2F or 2G), with or without wall effects
section, calculate hourly NOX mass
low mass emissions excepted adjustments;
emissions from the hourly NOX
methodology under § 75.19 the (2) The applicable data elements
concentration (in ppm) and the hourly
monitoring plan shall include the under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(A) through (T)
stack flow rate (in scfh). Only one
additional information in § 75.53(h)(4)(i) and under § 75.59(a)(7)(iii)(A) through
methodology for determining NOX mass
and (h)(4)(ii), only. Prior to January 1, (M) shall be reported for any flow RATA
emissions shall be identified in the
2008, the monitoring plan shall also run at a circular stack in which Method
monitoring plan for each monitoring
identify, in electronic format, the 2 is used and a wall effects adjustment
location at any given time. The owner
reporting schedule for the affected unit factor is determined by direct
or operator shall also calculate quarterly
(ozone season or quarterly), and the measurement;
and cumulative year-to-date NOX mass
beginning and end dates for the (3) The data under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(T)
emissions and cumulative NOX mass
reporting schedule. The monitoring plan shall be reported for all flow RATAs at
emissions for the ozone season (in tons)
also shall include a seasonal controls circular stacks in which Method 2 is
by summing the hourly NOX mass
indicator, and an ozone season fuel- used and a default wall effects
emissions according to the procedures
switching flag. adjustment factor is applied; and
in section 8 of appendix F to this part.
* * * * * (4) The data under § 75.59(a)(7)(ix)(A)
* * * * * through (F) shall be reported for all flow
(f) * * *
(f) [Reserved] RATAs at rectangular stacks or ducts in
(1) Electronic submission. The
* * * * * designated representative for an affected which Method 2 is used and a wall
33. Section 75.73 is amended by: unit shall electronically report the data effects adjustment factor is applied.
a. Revising paragraph (c)(3); and information in this paragraph (f)(1)
b. Replacing the number ‘‘45’’ with * * * * *
and in paragraphs (f)(2) and (3) of this 34. Section 75.74 is amended by:
the number ‘‘21’’ in paragraphs (e)(1)
section to the Administrator quarterly, a. Replacing the phrase ‘‘In the time
and (e)(2);
unless the unit has been placed in long- period to the start of the current ozone
c. Revising paragraph (f)(1)
term cold storage (as defined in § 72.2 season (i.e., in the period extending
introductory text;
d. Replacing the phrase ‘‘paragraph of this chapter). For units placed into from October 1 of the previous calendar
(a)’’ with the phrase ‘‘paragraphs (a) and long-term cold storage during a year through April 30 of the current
(b)’’ in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) introductory reporting quarter, the exemption from calendar year), the’’, with the word
text; and submitting quarterly reports begins with ‘‘The’’, in paragraph (c)(2) introductory
e. Revising paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(K). the calendar quarter following the date text;
The revisions read as follows: that the unit is placed into long-term b. Adding the words ‘‘in the second
cold storage. In such cases, the owner or calendar quarter no later than April 30’’
§ 75.73 Recordkeeping and reporting. operator shall submit quarterly reports to the end of paragraph (c)(2)(i)
* * * * * for the unit beginning with the data introductory text;
(c) * * * from the quarter in which the unit c. Removing the phrase ‘‘of the
(3) Contents of the monitoring plan recommences operation (where the current calendar year’’ from the first
for units not subject to an Acid Rain initial quarterly report contains hourly sentence, and removing the last
emissions limitation. Prior to January 1, data beginning with the first hour of sentence of paragraph (c)(2)(i)(C);
2009, each monitoring plan shall recommenced operation of the unit). d. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(i)(D);
contain the information in § 75.53(e)(1) Each electronic report must be e. Adding the words ‘‘in the first or
or § 75.53(g)(1) in electronic format and submitted to the Administrator within second calendar quarter, but no later
the information in § 75.53(e)(2) or 30 days following the end of each than April 30’’ to the end of the first
§ 75.53(g)(2) in hardcopy format. On and calendar quarter. Except as otherwise sentence, and by removing the second
after January 1, 2009, each monitoring provided in §§ 75.64(a)(4) and (a)(5), sentence of paragraph (c)(2)(ii)
plan shall contain the information in each electronic report shall include the introductory text;
§ 75.53(g)(1) in electronic format and the information provided in paragraphs f. Removing the words ‘‘of the current
information in § 75.53(g)(2) in hardcopy (f)(1)(i) through (1)(vi) of this section, calendar year’’ from paragraph
format, only. In addition, to the extent and shall also include the date of report (c)(2)(ii)(E);
g. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(F); required under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this (2) A linearity check is performed and
h. Removing paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(G) section shall be performed by April 30. passed within that conditional data
and (c)(2)(ii)(H); (B) For the third calendar quarter, a validation period.
i. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii); linearity check shall be performed and * * * * *
j. Removing and reserving paragraphs passed no later than July 30. (6) * * *
(c)(3)(vi) through (viii); (iii) For the time periods described in
k. Replacing all occurrences of the (C) Conduct each linearity check in
accordance with the general procedures paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(C) and (c)(2)(ii)(E) of
words ‘‘§ 75.31, § 75.33, or § 75.37’’ with this section, hourly emission data and
the words ‘‘§§ 75.31 through 75.37’’ in in section 6.2 of appendix A to this part,
except that the data validation the results of all daily calibration error
paragraphs (c)(3)(xi), (c)(3)(xii)(A), and tests and flow monitor interference
(c)(3)(xii)(B); procedures in sections 6.2(a) through (f)
of appendix A do not apply. checks shall be recorded. The results of
l. Revising paragraph (c)(6)(iii); all daily calibration error tests and flow
m. Replacing the words ‘‘October 1 of (D) Each linearity check shall be done monitor interference checks performed
the previous calendar year’’ with ‘‘hands-off,’’ as described in section in the time period from April 1 through
‘‘January 1’’ in paragraph (c)(6)(v); and 2.2.3(c) of appendix B to this part. April 30 shall be reported. The owner or
n. Revising paragraph (c)(11). (E) Data Validation. For second and operator shall also report unit operating
The revisions and additions read as third quarter linearity checks performed data recorded in the time period from
follows: by the applicable deadline (i.e., April 30 April 1 through April 30 beginning with
§ 75.74 Annual and ozone season or July 30), data validation shall be done the day of the first required daily
monitoring and reporting requirements. in accordance with sections 2.2.3(a), (b), calibration error test or flow monitor
(c), (e), and (h) of Appendix B to this interference check performed whenever
* * * * *
(c) * * * part. However, if a required linearity the XML reporting format is used. The
(2) * * * check for the second calendar quarter is owner or operator may also report the
(i) * * * not completed by April 30, or if a hourly emission data in the time period
(D) If the linearity check is not required linearity check for the third from April 1 through April 30. However,
completed by April 30, data validation calendar quarter is not completed by only the emission data recorded in the
shall be determined in accordance with July 30, data from the monitoring time period from May 1 through
paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(E) of this section. system (or range) shall be invalid, September 30 shall be used for NOX
(ii) * * * beginning with the first unit operating mass compliance determination;
(F) Data Validation. For each RATA hour on or after May 1 or July 31, * * * * *
that is performed by April 30, data respectively. The owner or operator (11) Units may qualify to use the
validation shall be done according to shall continue to invalidate all data optional NOX mass emissions
sections 2.3.2(a)–(j) of appendix B to from the CEMS until either: estimation protocol for gas-fired and oil-
this part. However, if a required RATA (1) The required linearity check of the fired peaking units in appendix E to this
is not completed by April 30, data from CEMS has been performed and passed; part on an ozone season basis. In order
the monitoring system shall be invalid, or to be allowed to use this methodology,
beginning with the first unit operating (2) A probationary calibration error the unit must meet the definition of
hour on or after May 1. The owner or test of the CEMS is passed in ‘‘peaking unit’’ in § 72.2 of this chapter,
operator shall continue to invalidate all accordance with § 75.20(b)(3)(ii). Once except that the words ‘‘year’’, ‘‘calendar
data from the CEMS until either: the probationary calibration error test year’’ and ‘‘calendar years’’ in that
(1) The required RATA of the CEMS has been passed, the owner or operator definition shall be replaced by the
has been performed and passed; or shall perform the required linearity words ‘‘ozone season’’, ‘‘ozone season’’,
(2) A probationary calibration error check in accordance with the and ‘‘ozone seasons’’, respectively. In
test of the CEMS is passed in conditional data validation provisions addition, in the definition of the term
accordance with § 75.20(b)(3)(ii). Once and within the 168 unit or stack ‘‘capacity factor’’ in § 72.2 of this
the probationary calibration error test operating hour time frame specified in chapter, the word ‘‘annual’’ shall be
has been passed, the owner or operator § 75.20(b)(3) (subject to the restrictions replaced by the words ‘‘ozone season’’
shall perform the required RATA in in paragraph (c)(3)(xii) of this section), and the number ‘‘8,760’’ shall be
accordance with the conditional data and the term ‘‘quality assurance’’ shall replaced by the number ‘‘3,672’’.
validation provisions and within the apply instead of the term 35. Section 75.81 is amended by:
720 unit or stack operating hour time ‘‘recertification.’’ However, in lieu of the a. Revising paragraph (a)(4);
frame specified in § 75.20(b)(3) (subject b. Revising paragraph (c)(1);
provisions in § 75.20(b)(3)(ix), the c. Revising paragraph (c)(2);
to the restrictions in paragraph owner or operator shall follow the
(c)(3)(xii) of this section), and the term c. Removing Eq. 1 from paragraph
applicable provisions in paragraphs (d)(1);
‘‘quality assurance’’ shall apply instead (c)(3)(xi) and (c)(3)(xii) of this section. d. Revising paragraph (d)(2);
of the term ‘‘recertification.’’ However,
(F) A pre-season linearity check e. Adding paragraph (d)(4)(iv); and
in lieu of the provisions in f. Revising paragraphs (d)(5) and
performed and passed in April satisfies
§ 75.20(b)(3)(ix), the owner or operator (e)(1).
the linearity check requirement for the
shall follow the applicable provisions in The revisions and additions read as
second quarter.
paragraphs (c)(3)(xi) and (c)(3)(xii) of follows:
this section. (G) The third quarter linearity check
(3) * * * requirement in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B) of § 75.81 Monitoring of Hg mass emissions
this section is waived if:
(ii) For each gas monitor required by and heat input at the unit level.
this subpart, linearity checks shall be (1) Due to infrequent unit operation, * * * * *
performed in the second and third the 168 operating hour conditional data (a) * * *
calendar quarters, as follows: validation period associated with a pre- (4) If heat input is required to be
(A) For the second calendar quarter, season linearity check extends into the reported under the applicable State or
the pre-ozone season linearity check third quarter; and Federal Hg mass emission reduction
program that adopts the requirements of Qmax = Maximum potential flow rate, operator may test a subset of the units
this subpart, the owner or operator must determined according to section in lieu of testing each unit individually.
meet the general operating requirements 2.1.4.1 of appendix A to this part, If this option is selected, the number of
for a flow monitoring system and an O2 (scfh) units required to be tested shall be
or CO2 monitoring system to measure Equation 1 of this section assumes determined from Table LM–4 in § 75.19.
heat input rate. that the unit operates year-round at its If the test results demonstrate that the
* * * * * maximum potential flow rate. Also, note units sharing the common stack qualify
(c) * * * that if the highest Hg concentration as low mass emitters, the default Hg
(1) The owner or operator must measured in any test run is less than concentration used for reporting Hg
perform Hg emission testing one year or 0.50 µg/scm, a default value of 0.50 µg/ mass emissions at the common stack
less before the compliance date in scm must be used in the calculations. shall either be the highest value
§ 75.80(b), to determine the Hg * * * * * obtained in any test run for any of the
concentration (i.e., total vapor phase Hg) (d) * * * tested units serving the common stack
in the effluent. The testing shall be (2) Following initial certification, the or 0.50 µg/scm, whichever is greater.
performed using one of the Hg reference same default Hg concentration value Notwithstanding these requirements,
methods listed in § 75.22(a)(7), and shall that was used to estimate the unit’s the emission testing required under
consist of a minimum of 3 runs at the annual Hg mass emissions under paragraphs (c) and/or (d)(3) of this
normal unit operating load, while paragraph (c) of this section shall be section may be performed at the
combusting coal. The coal combusted reported for each unit operating hour, common stack in the following
during the testing must be from the except as otherwise provided in circumstances:
same source of supply as the coal paragraph (d)(4)(iv) or (d)(6) of this (i) The initial certification testing
combusted at the start of the Hg mass section. The default Hg concentration required under paragraph (c) of this
emissions reduction program. The section may be performed at the
value shall be updated as appropriate,
minimum time per run shall be 1 hour common stack if all of the units using
according to paragraph (d)(5) of this
if an instrumental reference method is the stack are affected units and if, prior
section.
used. If Method 29 or the Ontario Hydro to entering the common stack, the
method is used, paired sampling trains * * * * * effluent gas streams from the individual
(4) * * * units are combined together upstream of
are required for each test run and the (iv) An additional retest is required
run must be long enough to ensure that an emission control device that reduces
when there is a change in the fuel
sufficient Hg is collected to analyze. the Hg concentration. If this testing
supply. The retest shall be performed
When Method 29 or the Ontario Hydro option is chosen:
within 720 unit operating hours of the (A) The testing must be done at a
method is used, the test results shall be
change. combined load corresponding to the
based on the vapor phase Hg collected (5) The default Hg concentration used
in the back-half of the sampling trains designated normal load level (low, mid,
for reporting under § 75.84 shall be
(i.e., the non-filterable impinger or high) for the units sharing the
updated after each required retest. This
catches). For each Method 29 or Ontario common stack, in accordance with
includes retests that are required prior
Hydro method test run, the paired trains section 6.5.2.1 of appendix A to this
to the compliance date in § 75.80(b).
must meet the percent relative deviation part;
The updated value shall either be the (B) All of the units that share the stack
(RD) requirement in § 75.22(a)(7). If the
highest Hg concentration measured in must be operating in a normal, stable
RD specification is met, the results of
any of the test runs or 0.50 µg/scm, manner and at typical load levels during
the two trains shall be averaged
whichever is greater. The updated value the emission testing;
arithmetically. If the unit is equipped
shall be applied beginning with the first (C) When calculating E, the estimated
with flue gas desulfurization or add-on
unit operating hour in which Hg maximum potential annual Hg mass
Hg emission controls, the controls must
emissions data are required to be emissions from the stack, the maximum
be operating normally during the
reported after completion of the retest, potential flow rate through the common
testing, and, for the purpose of
except as provided in paragraph stack (as defined in the monitoring plan)
establishing proper operation of the
controls, the owner or operator shall (d)(4)(iv) of this section, where the need and the highest concentration from any
record parametric data or SO2 to retest is triggered by a change in the test run (or 0.50 µg/scm, if greater) shall
concentration data in accordance with fuel supply. In that case, apply the be substituted into Equation 1;
§ 75.58(b)(3)(i). updated default Hg concentration (D) The calculated value of E shall be
(2) Based on the results of the beginning with the first unit operating divided by the number of units sharing
emission testing, Equation 1 of this hour in which Hg emissions are the stack. If the result, when rounded to
section shall be used to provide a required to be reported after the date the nearest ounce, does not exceed 464
conservative estimate of the annual Hg and hour of the fuel switch. ounces, the units qualify to use the low
mass emissions from the unit: * * * * * mass emission methodology; and
(e) * * * (E) If the units qualify to use the
E = 8760 K C Hg Q max ( Eq. 1) (1) The methodology may not be used
for reporting Hg mass emissions at a
methodology, the default Hg
concentration used for reporting at the
Where: common stack unless all of the units common stack shall be the highest value
E = Estimated annual Hg mass using the common stack are affected obtained in any test run or 0.50 µg/scm,
emissions from the affected unit, units and each individual unit is tested whichever is greater; or
(ounces/year) to demonstrate that its potential to emit (ii) For all common stack
K = Units conversion constant, 9.978 × does not exceed 464 ounces of Hg per configurations, the retests required
10¥10 oz-scm/[mu]g-scf year, in accordance with paragraphs (c) under paragraph (d)(3) of this section
8760 = Number of hours in a year and (d) of this section. If the units may be done at the common stack. If
CHg = The highest Hg concentration (µg/ sharing the common stack qualify as a this testing option is chosen, the testing
scm) from any of the test runs or 0.50 group of identical units in accordance shall be done at a combined load
µg/scm, whichever is greater
EP22AU06.050</GPH>
with § 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(B), the owner or corresponding to the designated normal
load level (low, mid, or high) for the (ii) Calculate the hourly heat input at otherwise provided in § 75.64(a) for
units sharing the common stack, in each stack (in mmBtu) by multiplying units in long-term cold storage. Each
accordance with section 6.5.2.1 of the measured stack heat input rate by electronic report must be submitted to
appendix A to this part. The due date the corresponding stack operating time; the Administrator within 30 days
for the next retest shall be determined and following the end of each calendar
as follows: (iii) Determine the hourly unit heat quarter. Except as otherwise provided in
(A) To calculate E, the maximum input by summing the hourly stack heat §§ 75.64(a)(4) and (a)(5), each electronic
potential flow rate for the common stack input values. report shall include the date of report
(as defined in the monitoring plan) and (d) * * * generation and the following
the highest Hg concentration from any (3) If the monitoring option in information for each affected unit or
test run (or 0.50 µg/scm, if greater) shall paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section group of units monitored at a common
be substituted into Equation 1; is selected, and if heat input is required stack:
(B) If the value of E obtained from to be reported under the applicable * * * * *
Equation 1, rounded to the nearest State or Federal Hg mass emission (ii) * * *
ounce, is greater than 144 times the reduction program that adopts the (I) Supplementary RATA information
number of units sharing the common requirements of this subpart, the owner required under § 75.59(a)(7), except that:
stack, but less than or equal to 464 times or operator shall: (1) The applicable data elements
the number of units sharing the stack, (i) Use the installed flow and diluent under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(A) through (T)
the next retest is due in two QA monitors to determine the hourly heat and under § 75.59(a)(7)(iii)(A) through
operating quarters; input rate at each stack or duct (mmBtu/ (M) shall be reported for flow RATAs at
(C) If the value of E obtained from hr), according to section 5.2 of appendix circular or rectangular stacks (or ducts)
Equation 1, rounded to the nearest F to this part; and in which angular compensation for yaw
ounce, is less than or equal to 144 times (ii) Calculate the hourly heat input at and/or pitch angles is used (i.e., Method
the number of units sharing the each stack or duct (in mmBtu) by 2F or 2G), with or without wall effects
common stack, the next retest is due in multiplying the measured stack (or adjustments;
four QA operating quarters. duct) heat input rate by the (2) The applicable data elements
* * * * * corresponding stack (or duct) operating under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(A) through (T)
36. Section 75.82 is amended by time; and and under § 75.59(a)(7)(iii)(A) through
adding paragraphs (b)(3), (c)(4), and (iii) Determine the hourly unit heat (M) shall be reported for any flow RATA
(d)(3) to read as follows: input by summing the hourly stack (or run at a circular stack in which Method
duct) heat input values. 2 is used and a wall effects adjustment
§ 75.82 Monitoring of Hg mass emissions 37. Section 75.84 is amended by: factor is determined by direct
and heat input at common and multiple a. Removing ‘‘§ 75.53(e)(1)’’ and measurement;
stacks. ‘‘§ 75.53(e)(2)’’ and adding in their place (3) The data under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(T)
* * * * * ‘‘§ 75.53(g)(1)’’ and ‘‘§ 75.53(g)(2)’’, shall be reported for all flow RATAs at
(b) * * * respectively, in paragraph (c)(3); circular stacks in which Method 2 is
(3) If the monitoring option in b. Removing the number ‘‘45’’ and used and a default wall effects
paragraph (b)(2) of this section is adding in its place the number ‘‘21’’ in adjustment factor is applied; and
selected, and if heat input is required to paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2); (4) The data under § 75.59(a)(7)(ix)(A)
be reported under the applicable State c. Revising paragraph (f)(1) through (F) shall be reported for all flow
or Federal Hg mass emission reduction introductory text; RATAs at rectangular stacks or ducts in
program that adopts the requirements of d. Removing ‘‘§ 75.64(a)(1)’’ and which Method 2 is used and a wall
this subpart, the owner or operator shall adding in its place ‘‘§ 75.64(a)(3)’’ in effects adjustment factor is applied.
either: paragraph (f)(1)(i);
(i) Apportion the common stack heat * * * * *
e. Replacing the phrase ‘‘paragraph 38. Appendix A to Part 75 is amended
input rate to the individual units (a)’’ with the phrase ‘‘paragraphs (a) and by:
according to the procedures in (b)’’ in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) introductory a. Revising paragraph (c) of section
§ 75.16(e)(3); or text; 2.1.1.1;
(ii) Install a flow monitoring system f. Revising paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(I). b. Revising paragraph (b)(2) of section
and a diluent gas (O2 or CO2) monitoring The revisions read as follows: 2.1.1.5;
system in the duct leading from each c. Revising paragraph (b)(2) of section
affected unit to the common stack, and § 75.84 Recordkeeping and reporting.
2.1.2.5; and
measure the heat input rate in each * * * * * d. Adding a new fourth sentence after
duct, according to section 5.2 of (f) * * * the third sentence of section 2.1.3.
appendix F to this part. (1) Electronic submission. Electronic e. Revising paragraph (3) of section
(c) * * * quarterly reports shall be submitted, 3.2;
(4) If the monitoring option in beginning with the calendar quarter f. Replacing the phrase ‘‘continuous
paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section containing the compliance date in emission monitoring system(s)’’ with
is selected, and if heat input is required § 75.80(b), unless otherwise specified in the phrase ‘‘monitoring component of a
to be reported under the applicable the final rule implementing a State or continuous emission monitoring system
State or Federal Hg mass emission Federal Hg mass emissions reduction that is’’ in section 3.5;
reduction program that adopts the program that adopts the requirements of g. Revising section 5.1;
requirements of this subpart, the owner this subpart. The designated h. Redesignating section 6.1 as section
or operator shall: representative for an affected unit shall 6.1.1;

(i) Use the installed flow and diluent report the data and information in this i. Adding new sections 6.1 and 6.1.2;
monitors to determine the hourly heat paragraph (f)(1) and the applicable j. Revising the second and third
input rate at each stack (mmBtu/hr), compliance certification information in sentences and adding a new fourth
according to section 5.2 of appendix F paragraph (f)(2) of this section to the sentence to section 6.2, introductory
to this part; and Administrator quarterly, except as text;
k. Replacing the words ‘‘section 2.6’’ y. Revising the words ‘‘Btu/kwh or (b) * * *
with the words ‘‘section 2.2.1’’, in Btu/lb steam load’’ to read ‘‘Btu/kwh, (2) For units with two NOX spans and
paragraph (g) of section 6.2; Btu/lb steam load, or mmBtu heat input/ ranges, if the low range is exceeded, no
mmBtu steam output’’ in the (GHR)ref further action is required, provided that the
l. Adding paragraph (h) to section 6.2;
high range is available and its most recent
m. Adding a new fourth sentence to variable definition, and by revising the calibration error test and linearity check have
section 6.3.1, introductory text; words ‘‘megawatts or 1000 lb/hr of not expired. However, if either of these
n. Revising the introductory text of steam’’ to read ‘‘megawatts, 1000 lb/hr quality assurance tests has expired and the
section 6.4; of steam, or mmBtu/hr thermal output’’ high range is not able to provide quality
o. Removing the words ‘‘that uses at the end of the Lavg variable definition, assured data at the time of the low range
CEMS to account for its emissions and in paragraph (c) of section 7.7. exceedance or at any time during the
for each unit that uses the optional fuel The revisions and additions read as continuation of the exceedance, report the
flow-to-load quality assurance test in follows: MPC as the NOX concentration until the
readings return to the low range or until the
section 2.1.7 of appendix D to this part’’ Appendix A to Part 75—Specifications high range is able to provide quality assured
from paragraph (a) of section 6.5.2.1; and Test Procedures data (unless the reason that the high-scale
p. Adding the words ‘‘or mmBtu/hr’’ range is not able to provide quality assured
after the words ‘‘klb/hr of steam * * * * * data is because the high-scale range has been
production’’, and by adding the words 2. Equipment Specifications exceeded; if the high-scale range is exceeded
‘‘or mmBtu/hr of thermal output’’ after follow the procedures in paragraph (b)(1) of
the words ‘‘thousands of lb/hr of steam 2.1.1.1 Maximum Potential Concentration this section).
load’’ in paragraph (a)(1) of section * * * * * * * * * *
6.5.2.1; (c) When performing fuel sampling to
determine the MPC, use ASTM Methods: 2.1.3 CO2 and O2 Monitors
q. Adding the words ‘‘and units using
ASTM D3177–89 (1997), ‘‘Standard Test * * * An alternative CO2 span value below
the low mass emissions (LME) excepted Methods for Total Sulfur in the Analysis 6.0 percent may be used if an appropriate
methodology under § 75.19’’ after the Sample of Coal and Coke’’; ASTM D4239–02, technical justification is included in the
words ‘‘(except for peaking units’’ in the ‘‘Standard Test Methods for Sulfur in the hardcopy monitoring plan.
second sentence in paragraph (c) of Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke Using
* * * * *
section 6.5.2.1; High Temperature Tube Furnace Combustion
3.2 * * *
r. Adding the words ‘‘and LME units’’ Methods’’; ASTM D4294–98, ‘‘Standard Test
(3) For the linearity check and the 3-level
after the words ‘‘For peaking units’’ in Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by
system integrity check of an Hg monitor,
the third sentence of paragraph (d)(1) of Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence
which are required, respectively, under
Spectroscopy’’; ASTM D1552–01, ‘‘Standard
section 6.5.2.1; §§ 75.20(c)(1)(ii) and (c)(1)(vi), the
Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum
s. Replacing the words ‘‘quarterly measurement error shall not exceed 5.0
Products (High Temperature Method)’’;
report’’ in the first sentence with the percent of the span value at any of the three
ASTM D129–00, ‘‘Standard Test Method for
words ‘‘monitoring plan’’, by adding the gas levels. To calculate the measurement
Sulfur in Petroleum Products (General Bomb
error at each level, take the absolute value of
words ‘‘or mmBtu/hr’’ after the term Method)’’; ASTM D2622–98, ‘‘Standard Test
the difference between the reference value
‘‘lb/hr’’, by replacing the number Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by
and mean CEM response, divide the result by
‘‘75.64’’ with the number ‘‘75.53’’, by X-Ray Spectrometry’’ for sulfur content of
the span value, and then multiply by 100.
adding the words ‘‘and LME units’’ after solid or liquid fuels; ASTM D3176–89
Alternatively, the results at any gas level are
the words ‘‘Except for peaking units’’, (1997)e1, ‘‘Standard Practice for Ultimate
acceptable if the absolute value of the
Analysis of Coal and Coke’’; ASTM D240–00
and by revising the words ‘‘electronic difference between the average monitor
(Reapproved 1991), ‘‘Standard Test Method
quarterly report (as part of the electronic response and the average reference value, i.e.,
for Heat of Combustion of Liquid
monitoring plan)’’ to read ‘‘electronic | R¥A | in Equation A–4 of this appendix,
Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter’’; or
monitoring plan’’ in paragraph (e) of does not exceed 0.6 µg/m3. The principal and
ASTM D5865–01ae1, ‘‘Standard Test Method
alternative performance specifications in this
section 6.5.2.1; for Gross Calorific Value of Coal and Coke’’
section also apply to the single-level system
t. Replacing all occurrences of the (incorporated by reference under § 75.6).
integrity check described in section 2.6 of
words ‘‘section 3.2’’ with the words * * * * * appendix B to this part.
‘‘section 8.1.3’’ in paragraph (b)(3) of 2.1.1.5 * * *
* * * * *
section 6.5.6, paragraph (a) of section (b) * * *
5.1 Reference Gases.
6.5.6.2, and paragraph (a) of section (2) For units with two SO2 spans and
For the purpose of part 75, calibration
6.5.6.3; ranges, if the low range is exceeded, no
gases include the following:
u. Adding the words ‘‘and the same further action is required, provided that the
high range is available and its most recent 5.1.1 EPA Protocol Gases
type of sorbent material’’ after the words calibration error test and linearity check have
‘‘same-size trap’’ in the third-to-last (a) An EPA Protocol Gas is a calibration gas
not expired. However, if either of these mixture prepared and analyzed according to
sentence of section 6.5.7, paragraph (a); quality assurance tests has expired and the Section 2 of the ‘‘EPA Traceability Protocol
v. Revising section 6.5.10; high range is not able to provide quality for Assay and Certification of Gaseous
w. Adding a sentence at the end of assured data at the time of the low range Calibration Standards,’’ September 1997,
section 7.6.1; exceedance or at any time during the EPA–600/R–97/121 or such revised
x. Revising the words ‘‘scfh/ continuation of the exceedance, report the procedure as approved by the Administrator
megawatts or scfh/1000 lb/hr of steam’’ MPC as the SO2 concentration until the (EPA Traceability Protocol).
to read ‘‘scfh/megawatts, scfh/1000 lb/ readings return to the low range or until the (b) An EPA Protocol Gas must have a
high range is able to provide quality assured specialty gas producer-certified uncertainty
hr of steam, or scfh/(mmBtu/hr of steam data (unless the reason that the high-scale
output)’’ at the end of the Rref variable (95-percent confidence interval) that must
range is not able to provide quality assured not be greater than 2.0 percent of the certified
definition, and by revising the words data is because the high-scale range has been concentration (tag value) of the gas mixture.
‘‘megawatts or 1000 lb/hr of steam,’’ to exceeded; if the high-scale range is exceeded The uncertainty must be calculated using the
read ‘‘megawatts, 1000 lb/hr of steam, or follow the procedures in paragraph (b)(1) of statistical procedures (or equivalent
mmBtu/hr thermal output’’ at the end of this section). statistical techniques) that are listed in
the Lavg variable definition in paragraph * * * * * Section 2.1.8 of the EPA Traceability
(a) of section 7.7; and 2.1.2.5 * * * Protocol.
(c) A specialty gas producer advertising under this part must conform to the shall be used to calculate the calibration
calibration gas certification with the EPA requirements of ASTM D7036–04. This error.
Traceability Protocol or distributing section is not applicable to daily operation, * * * * *
calibration gases as ‘‘EPA Protocol Gas’’ must daily calibration error checks, daily flow
participate in the EPA Protocol Gas interference checks, quarterly linearity 6.4 Cycle Time Test
Verification Program (PGVP) described in checks or routine maintenance of CEMS. Perform cycle time tests for each pollutant
Section 2.1.10 of the EPA Traceability (b) The AETB shall provide to the affected concentration monitor and continuous
Protocol or it cannot use ‘‘EPA’’ in any form source(s) certification that the AETB operates emission monitoring system while the unit is
of advertising for these products, unless in conformance with, and that data submitted operating, according to the following
approved by the Administrator. A specialty to the Agency has been collected in procedures (see also Figure 6 at the end of
gas producer may not certify a calibration gas accordance with, the requirements of ASTM this appendix). Use a zero-level and a high-
as an EPA Protocol Gas unless it participates D7036–04. This certification may be level calibration gas (as defined in section 5.2
in the PGVP, unless approved by the provided in the form of: of this appendix) alternately. To determine
Administrator. (1) A certificate of accreditation of relevant the upscale elapsed time, inject a zero-level
(d) A copy of EPA–600/R–97/121 is scope issued by a recognized, national concentration calibration gas into the probe
available from the National Technical accreditation body; or tip (or injection port leading to the
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, (2) A letter of certification signed by a calibration cell, for in situ systems with no
Springfield, VA, 703–605–6585 or http:// member of the senior management staff of the probe). Record the stable starting gas value
www.ntis.gov, and from http://www.epa.gov/ AETB. and start time, using the data acquisition and
ttn/emc/news.html or http://www.epa.gov/ (c) The AETB shall either provide a handling system (DAHS). Next, allow the
appcdwww/tsb/index.html. Qualified Individual on-site to conduct or monitor to measure the concentration of flue
shall oversee all relative accuracy testing gas emissions until the response stabilizes.
5.1.2 Mercury Standards
carried out by the AETB as required in ASTM Record the stable ending stack emissions
For 7-day calibration error tests of Hg D7036–04. The Qualified Individual shall value and the end time of the test using the
concentration monitors and for daily provide the affected source(s) with copies of DAHS. Determine the upscale elapsed time
calibration error tests of Hg monitors, either the qualification credentials relevant to the as the time it takes for 95.0 percent of the
elemental Hg standards or a NIST-traceable scope of the testing conducted. step change to be achieved between the
source of oxidized Hg may be used. For stable starting gas value and the stable ending
linearity checks, elemental Hg standards
* * * * *
stack emissions value. Then repeat the
shall be used. For 3-level and single-point 6.2 Linearity Check (General Procedures) procedure, starting by injecting the high-level
system integrity checks under * * * Notwithstanding these gas concentration to determine the
§ 75.20(c)(1)(vi), sections 6.2(g) and 6.3.1 of requirements, if the SO2 or NOX span value downscale elapsed time, which is the time it
this appendix, and sections 2.1.1, 2.2.1 and for a particular monitor range is ≤30 ppm, takes for 95.0 percent of the step change to
2.6 of appendix B to this part, a NIST- that range is exempted from the linearity be achieved between the stable starting gas
traceable source of oxidized Hg shall be used. check requirements of this part, both for value and the stable ending stack emissions
Alternatively, other NIST-traceable standards initial certification and for on-going quality- value. End the downscale test by measuring
may be used for the required checks, subject assurance. For units with two measurement the stable concentration of flue gas
to the approval of the Administrator. ranges (high and low) for a particular emissions. Record the stable starting and
parameter, perform a linearity check on both ending monitor values, the start and end
5.1.3 Zero Air Material
the low scale (except for SO2 or NOX span times, and the downscale elapsed time for
(a) A calibration gas certified by the the monitor using the DAHS. A stable value
values ≤30 ppm) and the high scale. Note that
specialty gas producer or vendor not to is equivalent to a reading with a change of
for a NOX-diluent monitoring system with
contain concentrations of SO2, NOX, or total less than 2.0 percent of the span value for 2
hydrocarbons above 0.1 parts per million two NOX measurement ranges, if the low
NOX scale has a span value ≤30 ppm and is minutes, or a reading with a change of less
(ppm), a concentration of CO above 1 ppm, than 6.0 percent from the measured average
or a concentration of CO2 above 400 ppm; exempt from linearity checks, this does not
exempt either the diluent monitor or the high concentration over 6 minutes. Alternatively,
(b) Ambient air conditioned and purified the reading is considered stable if it changes
by a CEMS for which the CEMS manufacturer NOX scale (if the span is >30 ppm) from
linearity check requirements. by no more than 0.5 ppm or 0.2% CO2 or O2
or vendor certifies that the particular CEMS (as applicable) for two minutes. (Owners or
model produces conditioned gas that does * * * * * operators of systems which do not record
not contain concentrations of SO2, NOX, or (g) For Hg monitors, follow the guidelines data in 1-minute or 3-minute intervals may
total hydrocarbons above 0.1 ppm, a in section 2.2.3 of this appendix in addition petition the Administrator under § 75.66 for
concentration of CO above 1 ppm, or a to the applicable procedures in section 6.2 alternative stabilization criteria). For
concentration of CO2 above 400 ppm; when performing the system integrity checks monitors or monitoring systems that perform
(c) For dilution-type CEMS, conditioned described in § 75.20(c)(1)(vi) and in sections a series of operations (such as purge, sample,
and purified ambient air provided by a 2.1.1, 2.2.1 and 2.6 of appendix B to this part. and analyze), time the injections of the
conditioning system concurrently supplying (h) For Hg concentration monitors, if calibration gases so they will produce the
dilution air to the CEMS; or moisture is added to the calibration gas longest possible cycle time. Report the slower
(d) A multi-component mixture certified by during the required linearity checks or of the two elapsed times (upscale or
the supplier of the mixture that the system integrity checks, and if the Hg downscale) as the cycle time for the analyzer.
concentration of the component being zeroed monitor measures on a dry basis, the (See Figure 5 at the end of this appendix.)
is less than or equal to the applicable moisture content of the calibration gas must Prior to January 1, 2009 for the NOX-diluent
concentration specified in paragraph (a) of be accounted for. Under these circumstances, continuous emission monitoring system test,
this section, and that the mixture’s other the dry basis concentration of the calibration either record and report the longer cycle time
components do not interfere with the CEM gas shall be used to calculate the linearity of the two component analyzers as the
readings. error or measurement error (as applicable). system cycle time or record the cycle time for
* * * * * * * * * * each component analyzer separately (as
applicable). On and after January 1, 2009,
6.1 General Requirements 6.3.1 Gas Monitor 7-Day Calibration Error record the cycle time for each component
* * * * * Test analyzer separately. For time-shared systems,
* * * Also for Hg monitors, if moisture is perform the cycle time tests at each probe
6.1.2 Requirements for Air Emission Testing added to the calibration gas and the locations that will be polled within the same
Bodies monitoring system measures Hg 15-minute period during monitoring system
(a) Any Air Emission Testing Body (AETB) concentration on a dry basis, the added operations. To determine the cycle time for
conducting relative accuracy test audits of moisture must be accounted for and the dry- time-shared systems, at each monitoring
CEMS and sorbent trap monitoring systems basis concentration of the calibration gas location, report the sum of the cycle time
observed at that monitoring location plus the thermal output’’ in the Lh variable 2.1.5.1 * * *
sum of the time required for all purge cycles definition, in paragraph (a) of section (2) For a monitor that has passed the off-
(as determined by the continuous emission 2.2.5; line calibration demonstration, off-line
monitoring system manufacturer) at each of h. Revising the words Btu/kwh or calibration error tests may be used to validate
the probe locations of the time-shared data from the monitor for up to 26
Btu/lb steam load’’ to read ‘‘Btu/kwh, consecutive unit or stack operating hours,
systems. For monitors with dual ranges,
report the test results from on the range Btu/lb steam load, mmBtu heat input/ after which data from the monitor become
giving the longer cycle time. Cycle time test mmBtu thermal output’’ in the (GHR)h invalid until an on-line calibration error test
results are acceptable for monitor or variable definition, and by revising the of the monitor is passed. Once the required
monitoring system certification, words ‘‘megawatts or 1000 lb/hr of on-line calibration error test has been passed,
recertification or diagnostic testing if none of steam’’ to read ‘‘megawatts, 1000 lb/hr another 26 operating hour cycle of data
the cycle times exceed 15 minutes. The status of steam, or mmBtu/hr thermal output’’ validation using off-line calibration error
of emissions data from a monitor prior to and in the Lh variable definition, in tests may begin. Each off-line calibration
during a cycle time test period shall be error test that is used for data validation has
paragraph (a)(2) of section 2.2.5; a prospective data validation window of 26
determined as follows: i. Replacing the word ‘‘five’’ with the clock hours, as described in section 2.1.5 of
* * * * * word ‘‘twenty’’, and by replacing the this appendix. If the sequence of consecutive
6.5.10 Reference Methods word ‘‘years’’ with the word ‘‘quarters’’, operating hours validated by off-line
The following methods from appendix A to
in paragraph (c)(4) of section 2.3.1.3; calibrations is broken before reaching the
part 60 of this chapter or their approved
j. Revising paragraph (g) of section 26th consecutive unit or stack operating
2.3.2; hour, data from the monitor become invalid
alternatives are the reference methods for
k. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (c) of and an on-line calibration error test must be
performing relative accuracy test audits:
section 2.3.3; passed to re-establish the quality-assured
Method 1 or 1A for siting; Method 2 or its
l. Adding paragraph (d) to section data status. The sequence is considered
allowable alternatives in appendix A to part
broken when a unit or stack operating hour
60 of this chapter (except for Methods 2B and 2.3.3; is not contained within the 26 clock hour
2E) for stack gas velocity and volumetric flow m. Revising section 2.6; and data validation window of a passed off-line
rate; Methods 3, 3A or 3B for O2 and CO2; n. Replacing the term ‘‘dscm’’ with calibration error test.
Method 4 for moisture; Methods 6, 6A or 6C ‘‘scm’’ in Figure 2. (3) For units with two measurement ranges
for SO2; Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D or 7E for The revisions and additions read as (low and high) for a particular parameter,
NOX, excluding the exceptions of Method 7E follows: when separate analyzers are used for the low
identified in § 75.22(a)(5); and either the and high ranges, a failed or expired
Ontario Hydro Method, Method 29 in Appendix B to Part 75—Quality calibration on one of the ranges does not
appendix A–8 to part 60 of this chapter, or Assurance and Quality Control affect the quality-assured data status on the
an approved instrumental method for Hg (see Procedures other range. For a dual-range analyzer (i.e., a
§ 75.22). single analyzer with two measurement
1. Quality Assurance/Quality Control
* * * * * Program
scales), a failed calibration error test on either
the low or high scale results in an out-of-
7.6 Bias Test and Adjustment Factor * * * * * control period for the monitor. Data from the
* * * * * 1.1.4 The requirements in section 6.1.2 of monitor remain invalid until corrective
7.6.1 * * * To calculate bias for a Hg appendix A to this part shall be met by any actions are taken and ‘‘hands-off’’ calibration
monitoring system when using the Ontario Air Emissions Testing Body (AETB) error tests have been passed on both ranges.
Hydro Method or Method 29 in appendix A– performing the semiannual/annual RATAs However, if the most recent calibration error
8 to part 60 of this chapter, ‘‘d’’ is, for each described in section 2.3 of this appendix and test on the high scale has expired, while the
data point, the difference between the the periodic Hg emission tests described in low scale is up-to-date on its calibration error
average Hg concentration value (in µg/m3) §§ 75.81(c)(1) and 75.81(d)(4)(iii). test requirements (or vice-versa), the expired
from the paired Ontario Hydro or Method 29 * * * * * calibration error test does not affect the
sampling trains and the concentration quality-assured status of the data recorded on
measured by the monitoring system. For 2. Frequency of Testing the other scale.
sorbent trap monitoring systems, use the * * * * * * * * * *
average Hg concentration measured by the 2.2.3 * * *
paired traps in the calculation of ‘‘d’’. 2.1.1 Calibration Error Test
(e) * * * For a dual-range analyzer,
* * * * * Except as provided in section 2.1.1.2 of ‘‘hands-off’’ linearity checks must be passed
39. Appendix B to Part 75 is amended this appendix, perform the daily calibration on both measurement scales to end the out-
error test of each gas monitoring system of-control period.
by: (including moisture monitoring systems
a. adding section 1.1.4; consisting of wet- and dry-basis O2 analyzers)
* * * * *
b. Revising section 2.1.1; 2.3.2 * * *
according to the procedures in section 6.3.1
c. Revising paragraph (2) of section (g) Data validation for failed RATAs for a
of appendix A to this part, and perform the
2.1.1.2; CO2 pollutant concentration monitor (or an
daily calibration error test of each flow
d. Revising paragraph (2) of section O2 monitor used to measure CO2 emissions),
monitoring system according to the
a NOX pollutant concentration monitor, and
2.1.5.1; procedure in section 6.3.2 of appendix A to
a NOX-diluent monitoring system shall be
e. Adding paragraph (3) to section this part. When two measurement ranges
done according to paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2)
2.1.5.1; (low and high) are required for a particular
of this section:
f. Adding a new fourth sentence to parameter, perform sufficient calibration
(1) For a CO2 pollutant concentration
paragraph (e) of section 2.2.3; error tests on each range to validate the data monitor (or an O2 monitor used to measure
recorded on that range, according to the
g. Revising the words ‘‘scfh/ CO2 emissions) which also serves as the
criteria in section 2.1.5 of this appendix. diluent component in a NOX-diluent
megawatts or scfh/1000 lb/hr of steam
load’’ to read ‘‘scfh/megawatts, scfh/ * * * * * monitoring system, if the CO2 (or O2) RATA
2.1.1.2 * * * is failed, then both the O2 (or O2) monitor
1000 lb/hr of steam load, or scfh/

(2) For each monitoring system that has and the associated NOX-diluent system are
(mmBtu/hr thermal output)’’ at the end passed the off-line calibration demonstration, considered out-of-control, beginning with the
of the Rh variable definition, and by off-line calibration error tests may be used on hour of completion of the failed CO2 (or O2)
revising the words ‘‘megawatts or 1000 a limited basis to validate data, in accordance monitor RATA, and continuing until the
lb/hr of steam’’ to read ‘‘megawatts, with paragraph (2) in section 2.1.5.1 of this hour of completion of subsequent hands-off
1000 lb/hr of steam, or mmBtu/hr appendix. RATAs which demonstrate that both systems
have met the applicable relative accuracy the quarter in which the grace period test is replacing the phrase ‘‘megawatts or
specifications in sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 of completed. 1000 lb/hr of steam’’ with the phrase
appendix A to this part, unless the option in (3) Notwithstanding these requirements, no ‘‘megawatts, 1000 lb/hr of steam, or
paragraph (b)(3) of this section to use the data more than eight successive calendar quarters mmBtu/hr thermal output’’ in the Lh
validation procedures and associated shall elapse after the quarter in which the
timelines in §§ 75.20(b)(3)(ii) through grace period test is completed, without a variable definition, in paragraph (c) of
(b)(3)(ix) has been selected, in which case the subsequent RATA having been conducted. section 2.1.7.2;
beginning and end of the out-of-control g. Replacing ‘‘D4177–82 (Reapproved
* * * * * 1990)’’ with ‘‘D4177–95 (2000)’’, in the
period shall be determined in accordance
with §§ 75.20(b)(3)(vii)(A) and (B). 2.6 System Integrity Checks for Hg Monitors first sentence of section 2.2.3;
(2) This paragraph (g)(2) applies only to a For each Hg concentration monitoring h. Replacing ‘‘D4057–88’’ with
NOX pollutant concentration monitor that system (except for a Hg monitor that does not ‘‘D4057–95 (2000)’’, in sections 2.2.4.1
serves both as the NOX component of a NOX have a converter), perform a single-point and 2.2.4.2, and in paragraph (c) of
concentration monitoring system (to measure system integrity check weekly, i.e., at least section 2.2.4.3;
NOX mass emissions) and as the NOX once every 168 unit or stack operating hours, i. Revising sections 2.2.5, 2.2.6, and
component in a NOX-diluent monitoring using a NIST-traceable source of oxidized Hg.
system (to measure NOX emission rate in lb/
2.2.7;
Perform this check using a mid-or high-level j. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (e) of
mmBtu). If the RATA of the NOX gas concentration, as defined in section 5.2
concentration monitoring system is failed, section 2.3.1.4;
of appendix A to this part. The performance k. Revising section 2.3.3.1.2;
then both the NOX concentration monitoring specifications in paragraph (3) of section 3.2
system and the associated NOX-diluent l. Replacing the identifier ‘‘D1826–
of appendix A to this part must be met,
monitoring system are considered out-of- otherwise the monitoring system is
88’’ with the identifier ‘‘D1826–94
control, beginning with the hour of considered out-of-control, from the hour of (1998)’’, by replacing the identifier
completion of the failed NOX concentration the failed check until a subsequent system ‘‘D3588–91’’ with the identifier
RATA, and continuing until the hour of integrity check is passed. If a required system ‘‘D3588–98’’, by adding the number
completion of subsequent hands-off RATAs integrity check is not performed and passed ‘‘(2001)’’ after the identifier ‘‘ASTM
which demonstrate that both systems have within 168 unit or stack operating hours of D4891–89’’, by replacing the numbers
met the applicable relative accuracy last successful check, the monitoring system
specifications in sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.7 of
‘‘2172–86’’ with the numbers ‘‘2172–
shall also be considered out of control, 1996’’, and by replacing the numbers
appendix A to this part, unless the option in beginning with the 169th unit or stack
paragraph (b)(3) of this section to use the data ‘‘2261–90’’ with the numbers ‘‘2261–
operating hour after the last successful check,
validation procedures and associated and continuing until a subsequent system
1999’’, in section 2.3.4;
timelines in §§ 75.20(b)(3)(ii) through integrity check is passed. This weekly check m. Adding two sentences at the end
(b)(3)(ix) has been selected, in which case the is not required if the daily calibration of section 2.3.4.1;
beginning and end of the out-of-control assessments in section 2.1.1 of this appendix n. Replacing the phrase ‘‘Gas Total
period shall be determined in accordance are performed using a NIST-traceable source Sulfur Content’’ in the ‘‘Parameter’’
with §§ 75.20(b)(3)(vii)(A) and (B). of oxidized Hg. column of Table D–6 with the phrase
* * * * * * * * * * ‘‘Gas Total Sulfur Content*’’, and
2.3.3 RATA Grace Period 40. Appendix D to Part 75 is amended adding the following footnote beneath
by: the Table ‘‘ * Required no later than July
(a) * * *
a. Revising section 2.1.5.1; 1, 2003’’; and
(2) A required 3-load flow RATA has not
been performed by the end of the calendar b. Removing all ‘‘±’’ symbols from o. Replacing the words ‘‘(Reapproved
quarter in which it is due; or paragraph (c) of section 2.1.6.1; 1990)’’ with the words ‘‘(1997)e1’’ in
c. Revising the Rbase and Lavg variable section 3.2.2.
* * * * * The revisions and additions read as
(c) If, at the end of the 720 unit (or stack) definitions in paragraph (a) of section
operating hour grace period, the RATA has 2.1.7.1; follows:
not been completed, data from the d. Revising the words ‘‘Btu/kwh or
Appendix D to Part 75—Optional SO2
monitoring system shall be invalid, Btu/lb steam load’’ to read ‘‘Btu/kwh,
Emissions Data Protocol for Gas-Fired
beginning with the first unit operating hour Btu/lb steam load, or mmBtu heat input/
and Oil-Fired Units.
following the expiration of the grace period. mmBtu thermal output’’ in the (GHR)base
Data from the CEMS remain invalid until the variable definition, and by revising the 2. Procedure
hour of completion of a subsequent hands-off words ‘‘megawatts or 1000 lb/hr of * * * * *
RATA. The deadline for the next test shall be steam’’ to read ‘‘megawatts, 1000 lb/hr 2.1.5.1 Use the procedures in the
either two QA operating quarters (if a following standards to verify flowmeter
of steam, or mmBtu/hr thermal output’’
semiannual RATA frequency is obtained) or accuracy or design, as appropriate to the type
four QA operating quarters (if an annual in the Lavg variable definition, in
paragraph (c) of section 2.1.7.1; of flowmeter: ASME MFC–3M–1989
RATA frequency is obtained) after the quarter (Reaffirmed 1995) (‘‘Measurement of Fluid
in which the RATA is completed, not to e. Removing the word ‘‘or’’ and
Flow in Pipes Using Orifice, Nozzle, and
exceed eight calendar quarters. adding the phrase’’,100 scfh/(mmBtu/hr Venturi’’); ASME MFC–4M–1986 (Reaffirmed
* * * * * of steam load), or (lb/hr)/(mmBtu/hr 1990), ‘‘Measurement of Gas Flow by Turbine
(d) When a RATA is done during a grace thermal output )’’ at the end of the Rh Meters;’’ American Gas Association Report
period in order to satisfy a RATA variable definition, and by replacing the No. 3, ‘‘Orifice Metering of Natural Gas and
requirement from a previous quarter, the phrase ‘‘megawatts or 1000 lb/hr of Other Related Hydrocarbon Fluids Part 1:
deadline for the next RATA shall be steam’’ with the phrase ‘‘megawatts, General Equations and Uncertainty
determined as follows: 1000 lb/hr of steam, or mmBtu /hr Guidelines’’ (October 1990 Edition), Part 2:
(1) If the grace period RATA qualifies for thermal output’’ in the Lh variable ‘‘Specification and Installation
a reduced, (i.e., annual), RATA frequency the definition, in paragraph (a) of section Requirements’’ (February 1991 Edition), and
deadline for the next RATA shall be set at Part 3: ‘‘Natural Gas Applications’’ (August
three QA operating quarters after the quarter

2.1.7.2; 1992 edition) (excluding the modified flow-
in which the grace period test is completed.
f. Replacing the phrase the ‘‘Btu/kwh calculation method in part 3); Section 8,
(2) If the grace period RATA qualifies for or Btu/lb steam load’’ with the phrase Calibration from American Gas Association
the standard, (i.e., semiannual), RATA ‘‘Btu/kwh, Btu/lb steam load, or mmBtu Transmission Measurement Committee
frequency the deadline for the next RATA heat input/mmBtu thermal output’’ in Report No. 7: Measurement of Gas by Turbine
shall be set at two QA operating quarters after the (GHR)h variable definition; and by Meters (Second Revision, April 1996); ASME
MFC–5M–1985 (Reaffirmed 2001) for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Energy- sampling of the fuel’s total sulfur content is
(‘‘Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence required, provided that the contract or tariff
Conduits Using Transit-Time Ultrasonic Spectroscopy’’ (incorporated by reference sheet is current, valid and representative of
Flowmeters’’); ASME MFC–6M–1998 under § 75.6). the fuel combusted in the unit. If the fuel
(‘‘Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using 2.2.6 Where the flowmeter records qualifies as pipeline natural gas based on fuel
Vortex Flow Meters’’); ASME MFC–7M–1987 volumetric flow rate rather than mass flow sampling and analysis, on-going sampling of
(Reaffirmed 2001), ‘‘Measurement of Gas rate, analyze oil samples to determine the the fuel’s sulfur content is required annually
Flow by Means of Critical Flow Venturi density or specific gravity of the oil. and whenever the fuel supply source
Nozzles;’’ ISO 8316: 1987(E) ‘‘Measurement Determine the density or specific gravity of changes. For the purposes of this paragraph,
of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits-Method the oil sample in accordance with ASTM (e), sampling ‘‘annually’’ means that at least
by Collection of the Liquid in a Volumetric D287–92(2000)e1, ‘‘Standard Test Method for one sample is taken in each calendar year. If
Tank;’’ American Petroleum Institute (API) API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and the results of at least 100 daily (or more
Manual of Measurement Standards, Chapter Petroleum Products (Hydrometer Method),’’ frequent) total sulfur samples have been
4: Section 2, ‘‘Conventional Pipe Provers’’ ASTM D1217–93(1998), ‘‘Standard Test provided by the fuel supplier since the last
(Provers Accumulating at Least 10,000 Method for Density and Relative Density annual assessment of the fuel’s sulfur
Pulses), Measurement Coordination (Second (Specific Gravity) of Liquids by Bingham content, the data may be used to satisfy the
Edition, March 2001), Section 3, ‘‘Small Pycnometer,’’ ASTM D1481–93 (1997), annual sampling requirement for the current
Volume Provers’’ (First Edition), and Section ‘‘Standard Test Method for Density and year. If this option is chosen, all of the data
5, ‘‘Master-Meter Provers’’, Measurement Relative Density (Specific Gravity) of Viscous provided by the fuel supplier shall be used.
Coordination (Second Edition, May 2000); Materials by Lipkin Bicapillary,’’ ASTM First, convert the data to monthly averages.
API Manual of Petroleum Measurement D1480–93 (1997), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Then, if, for each month, the average total
Standards, Chapter 22—Testing Protocol: Density and Relative Density (Specific sulfur content is 0.5 grains/100 scf or less,
Section 2—Differential Pressure Flow Gravity) of Viscous Materials by Bingham and if the GCV or percent methane
Measurement Devices (First Edition, August Pycnometer,’’ ASTM D1298–99, ‘‘Standard requirement is also met, the fuel qualifies as
2005); or ASME MFC–9M–1988 (Reaffirmed Practice for Density, Relative Density pipeline natural gas. Alternatively, the fuel
2001) (‘‘Measurement of Liquid Flow in (Specific Gravity) or API Gravity of Crude qualifies as pipeline natural gas if the GCV
Closed Conduits by Weighing Method’’), for Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum Products by or percent methane requirement is met and
all other flowmeter types (incorporated by Hydrometer Method,’’ or ASTM D4052–96 if the analysis of the 100 (or more) total
reference under § 75.6). The Administrator (2002)e1, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Density sulfur samples since the last annual
may also approve other procedures that use and Relative Density of Liquids by Digital assessment shows that > 98 percent of the
equipment traceable to National Institute of Density Meter’’ (incorporated by reference samples have a total sulfur content of 0.5
Standards and Technology standards. under § 75.6). grains/100 scf or less. The effective date of
Document such procedures, the equipment 2.2.7 Analyze oil samples to determine the annual total sulfur sampling requirement
used, and the accuracy of the procedures in the heat content of the fuel. Determine oil is January 1, 2003.
the monitoring plan for the unit, and submit heat content in accordance with ASTM * * * * *
a petition signed by the designated D240–00 (Reapproved 1991), ‘‘Standard Test 2.3.3.1.2 Use one of the following
representative under § 75.66(c). If the Method for Heat of Combustion of Liquid methods when using manual sampling (as
flowmeter accuracy exceeds 2.0 percent of Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter,’’ applicable to the type of gas combusted) to
the upper range value, the flowmeter does ASTM D4809–00, ‘‘Standard Test Method for determine the sulfur content of the fuel:
not qualify for use under this part. Heat of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon ASTM D1072–90(1999), ‘‘Standard Test
* * * * * Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (Precision
Method for Total Sulfur in Fuel Gases,’’
2.1.7.1(a) * * * Method),’’ or ASTM D5865–01ae1, ‘‘Standard
ASTM D4468–85 (2000) ‘‘Standard Test
Test Method for Gross Calorific Value of Coal
Where: Method for Total Sulfur in Gaseous Fuels by
and Coke’’ (incorporated by reference under
Rbase = Value of the fuel flow rate-to-load Hydrogenolysis and Radiometric
§ 75.6) or any other procedures listed in
ratio during the baseline period; 100 scfh/ Colorimetry,’’ ASTM D5504–01 ‘‘Standard
section 5.5 of appendix F of this part.
MWe, 100 scfh/klb per hour steam load, or Test Method for Determination of Sulfur
* * * * * Compounds in Natural Gas and Gaseous
100 scfh/mmBtu per hour thermal output
2.3.1.4 * * * Fuels by Gas Chromatography and
for gas-firing; (lb/hr)/MWe, (lb/hr)/klb per
(a) * * * Chemiluminescence,’’ ASTM D6667–04
hour steam load, or (lb/hr)/mmBtu per
(2) Historical fuel sampling data for the ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of
hour thermal output for oil-firing.
previous 12 months, documenting the total Total Volatile Sulfur in Gaseous
* * * * * sulfur content of the fuel and the GCV and/ Hydrocarbons and Liquified Petroleum Gases
Lavg = Arithmetic average unit load during or percentage by volume of methane. The by Ultraviolet Fluorescence,’’ or ASTM
the baseline period, megawatts, 1000 lb/hr results of all sample analyses obtained by or D3246–96 ‘‘Standard Test Method for Sulfur
of steam, or mmBtu/hr thermal output. provided to the owner or operator in the in Petroleum Gas By Oxidative
* * * * * previous 12 months shall be used in the Microcoulometry’’ (incorporated by reference
2.2.5 For each oil sample that is taken on- demonstration, and each sample result must under § 75.6).
site at the affected facility, split and label the meet the definition of pipeline natural gas in
§ 72.2 of this chapter, except where the * * * * *
sample and maintain a portion (at least 200
cc) of it throughout the calendar year and in results of at least 100 daily (or more frequent) 2.3.4.1 GCV of Pipeline Natural Gas
all cases for not less than 90 calendar days total sulfur samples are provided by the fuel
supplier. In that case you may convert these * * * If multiple GCV samples are taken
after the end of the calendar year allowance and analyzed in a particular month, the GCV
accounting period. This requirement does not data to monthly averages and then if, for each
month, the average total sulfur content is 0.5 values from all samples shall be averaged
apply to oil samples taken from the fuel arithmetically to obtain the monthly GCV.
supplier’s storage container, as described in grains/100 scf or less, and if the GCV or
percent methane requirement is also met, the Then, for the purposes of implementing
section 2.2.4.3 of this appendix. Analyze oil paragraph (c) in section 2.3.7 of this
samples for percent sulfur content by weight fuel qualifies as pipeline natural gas.
Alternatively, the fuel qualifies as pipeline appendix, consider the latest date of any of
in accordance with ASTM D129–00, the individual GCV samples used in the
‘‘Standard Test Method for Sulfur in natural gas if the GCV or percent methane
requirement is met and if ≥ 98 percent of the monthly average to be the ‘‘date on which the
Petroleum Products (General Bomb
100 (or more) samples have a total sulfur sample was taken’’.
Method),’’ ASTM D1552–01, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products content of 0.5 grains/100 scf or less; or * * * * *
(High Temperature Method),’’ ASTM D2622– * * * * * 41. Appendix E to Part 75 is amended
98, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Sulfur in (e) If a fuel qualifies as pipeline natural gas by:
Petroleum Products by X-Ray Spectrometry,’’ based on the specifications in a fuel contract a. Adding a new sentence to the end
or ASTM D4294–98, ‘‘Standard Test Method or tariff sheet, no additional, on-going of section 2.1;
b. Replacing the words ‘‘section 5.1’’ chapter’’ after the words ‘‘of this s. Replacing each identifier ‘‘D2234–
with the words ‘‘section 8.3.1’’ in appendix’’, in section 3.3; 89’’ with the identifier ‘‘D2234–00e1’’,
section 2.1.2.1; d. Removing the second and third in section 5.5.3.1;
c. Replacing the phrase ‘‘(MWge or sentences from section 3.3.4; t. Revising section 5.5.3.2;
steam load in 1000 lb/hr)’’ with the e. Adding sections 3.3.4.1 and 3.3.4.2; u. Revising the words ‘‘as measured
phrase ‘‘(MWge or steam load in 1000 f. Revising Table 1; by ASTM D3176–89, D1989–92, D3286–
lb/hr, or mmBtu/hr thermal output)’’, in g. Revising the text preceding 91a, or D2015–91, Btu/lb’’ to read ‘‘as
section 2.4.1; Equation F–7a, in section 3.3.6; measured by ASTM D3176–89 (1997)e1,
d. Revising section 2.5.2; and h. Adding ‘‘(1997)e1’’ after the or D5865ae1, Btu/lb.’’ in the definition
e. Adding section 2.5.2.4. identifier ‘‘D3176–89’’, by replacing the of the GCVc variable in Equation F–21;
The revisions and additions read as identifier ‘‘D5291–92’’ with the v. Revising the word ‘‘lb/hr’’ to read
follows: identifier ‘‘D5291–01’’, by replacing the ‘‘lb/hr, or mmBtu/hr’’ in the definition
identifier ‘‘D1945–91’’ with the of the SF variable in Equation F–21b;
Appendix E to Part 75—Optional NOX w. Revising the title and text of
Emissions Estimation Protocol for Gas- identifier ‘‘D1945–96 (2001)’’, and by
adding the number ‘‘(2000)’’ after the section 7;
Fired Peaking Units and Oil-Fired x. Adding the words ‘‘of this
Peaking Units. identifier ‘‘D1946–90’’, in section
3.3.6.1; appendix’’ after the words ‘‘section 8.1,
* * * * * i. Revising section 3.3.6.2; 8.2, or 8.3’’ and after the words ‘‘section
2.1 Initial Performance Testing j. Revising the definition of ‘‘Xi’’ 8.4’’ in the introductory text for section
under Equation F–8 in section 3.3.6.4; 8;
* * * The requirements in section 6.1.2 of y. Revising sections 8.1 and 8.1.1;
appendix A to this part shall be met by any k. Adding the words ‘‘either measured
Air Emissions Testing Body (AETB) directly with a CO2 monitor or z. Revising section 8.2;
performing O2 and NOX concentration calculated from wet-basis O2 data using aa. Adding sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2;
measurements under this appendix, either for Equation F–14b,’’ after the words ‘‘wet bb. Revising section 8.3;
units using the excepted methodology in this basis,’’ in the first sentence of the Ch cc. Revising section 8.4; and
appendix or for units using the low mass variable definition, and by removing the dd. Adding section 10.
emissions excepted methodology in § 75.19. The revisions and additions read as
second and third sentences from the Ch
* * * * * variable definition, in section 4.1; follows:
2.5.2 Substitute missing NOX emission
l. Revising section 4.4.1; Appendix F to Part 75—Conversion
rate data using the highest NOX emission rate
tabulated during the most recent set of m. Removing the second and third Procedures
baseline correlation tests for the same fuel or, sentences from the %CO2w variable * * * * *
if applicable, combination of fuels, except as definition in 5.2.1; 3.3.4 * * *
provided in sections 2.5.2.1, 2.5.2.2, 2.5.2.3, n. Removing the second and third 3.3.4.1 For boilers, a minimum
and 2.5.2.4 of this section. sentences from the %CO2d variable concentration of 5.0 percent CO2 or a
* * * * * definition in 5.2.2; maximum concentration of 14.0 percent O2
2.5.2.4 Whenever 20 full calendar o. Removing the second and third may be substituted for the measured diluent
quarters have elapsed following the quarter sentences from the %O2w variable gas concentration value for any operating
of the last baseline correlation test for a definition, and by adding a new hour in which the hourly average CO2
particular type of fuel (or fuel mixture), concentration is <5.0 percent CO2 or the
sentence at the end of the paragraph, in hourly average O2 concentration is >14.0
without a subsequent baseline correlation
test being done for that type of fuel (or fuel
section 5.2.3; percent O2. For stationary gas turbines, a
mixture), substitute the fuel-specific NOX p. Removing the second and third minimum concentration of 1.0 percent CO2
MER (as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter) for sentences from the %O2d variable or a maximum concentration of 19.0 percent
each hour in which that fuel (or mixture) is definition, in section 5.2.4; O2 may be substituted for measured diluent
combusted until a new baseline correlation q. Replacing the identifier ‘‘D240–87’’ gas concentration values for any operating
test for that fuel (or mixture) has been with the identifier ‘‘D240–00’’, by hour in which the hourly average CO2
successfully completed. For fuel mixtures, replacing the identifier ‘‘D2015–91’’ concentration is <1.0 percent CO2 or the
report the highest of the individual MER hourly average O2 concentration is >19.0
with the identifier ‘‘D5865–01ae1’’, and percent O2.
values for the components of the mixture.
by replacing the identifier ‘‘D2382–88’’ 3.3.4.2 If NOX emission rate is calculated
42. Appendix F to Part 75 is amended with the identifier ‘‘D4809–00’’ in the using either Equation 19–3 or 19–5 in
by: GCVO variable definition, in section Method 19 in appendix A–7 to part 60 of this
a. Removing the second and third 5.5.1; chapter, a variant of the equation shall be
sentences from the introductory text of r. Replacing the identifier ‘‘D1826– used whenever the diluent cap is applied.
section 2; 88’’ with the identifier ‘‘D1826–94 The modified equations shall be designated
b. Replacing the phrase ‘‘method 19 in (1998)’’, by replacing the identifier as Equations 19–3D and 19–5D, respectively.
appendix A of part 60 of this chapter’’ Equation 19–3D is structurally the same as
‘‘D3588–91’’ with the identifier
Equation 19–3, except that the term ‘‘%O2w’’
with the phrase ‘‘Method 19 in ‘‘D3588–98’’, by adding the number in the denominator is replaced with the term
appendix A–7 to part 60 of this ‘‘(2001)’’ after the identifier ‘‘D4891– ‘‘%O2dc × [(100¥% H2O)/100]’’, where %O2dc
chapter’’, in the last sentence of section 89’’, by replacing the numbers ‘‘2172– is the diluent cap value. The numerator of
3.1 and in the last sentence of section 86’’ with the numbers ‘‘2172–1996’’, Equation 19–5D is the same as Equation 19–
3.2; and by replacing the numbers ‘‘2261– 5; however, the denominator of Equation 19–
c. Adding the phrase ‘‘, or (if 90’’ with the numbers ‘‘2261–1999’’ in 5D is simply ‘‘20.9¥%O2dc’’, where %O2dc is
applicable) in the equations in Method the GCVg variable definition, in section the diluent cap value.
19 in appendix A–7 to part 60 of this 5.5.2; * * * * *
TABLE 1.—F AND FC-FACTORS 1

FC-factor
F-factor
Fuel (scf CO2/
(dscf/mmBtu) mmBtu)
Coal (as defined by ASTM D388–99e1):

Anthracite .......................................................................................................................................................... 10,100 1,970
Bituminous ........................................................................................................................................................ 9,780 1,800
Sub-bituminous ................................................................................................................................................. 9,819 1,840
Lignite ............................................................................................................................................................... 9,860 1,910
Petroleum Coke ....................................................................................................................................................... 9,832 1,853
Tire Derived Fuel 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 10,261 1,803
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.
* * * * * for Heat of Combustion of Liquid bituminous coal, wood). Each Xi value

3.3.6 Equations F–7a and F–7b may be Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter’’, or shall be determined from the best available
used in lieu of the F or Fc factors specified ASTM D4809–00, ‘‘Standard Test Method for information on the quantity of fuel
in Section 3.3.5 of this appendix to calculate Heat of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon combusted and the GCV value, over a
a site-specific dry-basis F factor (dscf/ Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (Precision specified time period. The owner or
mmBtu) or a site-specific Fc factor (scf CO2/ Method) for oil; and ASTM D3588–98
operator shall explain the method used to
mmBtu), on either a dry or wet basis. At a ‘‘Standard Practice for Calculating Heat
Value, Compressibility Factor, and Relative calculate Xi in the hardcopy portion of the
minimum, the site-specific F or Fc factor
must be based on 9 samples of the fuel. Fuel Density (Specific Gravity) of Gaseous Fuels,’’ monitoring plan for the unit. The Xi values
samples taken during each run of a RATA are ASTM D4891–89 (2001) ‘‘Standard Test may be determined and updated either
acceptable for this purpose. The site-specific Method for Heating Value of Gases in Natural hourly, daily, weekly, or monthly. In all
F or Fc factor must be re-determined at least Gas Range by Stoichiometric Combustion,’’ cases, the prorated F-factor used in the
annually, and the value from the most recent GPA Standard 2172–1996 ‘‘Calculation of emission calculations shall be determined
determination must be used in the emission Gross Heating Value, Relative Density and using the Xi values from the most recent
calculations. Alternatively, the previous F or Compressibility Factor for Natural Gas update.
Fc value may continue to be used if it is Mixtures from Compositional Analysis,’’
higher than the value obtained in the most GPA Standard 2261–1999 ‘‘Analysis for * * * * *
recent determination. The owner or operator Natural Gas and Similar Gaseous Mixtures by 4. Procedure for CO2 Mass Emissions
shall keep records of all site-specific F or Fc Gas Chromatography,’’ or ASTM D1826–94
determinations, active for at least 3 years. (1998), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Calorific * * * * *
(Calculate all F- and Fc factors at standard (Heating) Value of Gases in Natural Gas 4.4.1 If the owner or operator elects to use
conditions of 20 °C (68 °F) and 29.92 inches Range by Continuous Recording Calorimeter’’ data from an O2 monitor to calculate CO2
of mercury). for gaseous fuels, as applicable. (These concentration, the appropriate F and FC
methods are incorporated by reference under factors from section 3.3.5 of this appendix
* * * * * § 75.6).
3.3.6.2 GCV is the gross calorific value shall be used in one of the following
(Btu/lb) of the fuel combusted determined by * * * * * equations (as applicable) to determine hourly
ASTM D5865–01ae1 ‘‘Standard Test Method 3.3.6.4 * * * average CO2 concentration of flue gases (in
for Gross Calorific Value of Coal and Coke’’, Xi = Fraction of total heat input derived from percent by volume) from the measured
and ASTM D240–00 ‘‘Standard Test Method each type of fuel (e.g., natural gas, hourly average O2 concentration:
Fc 20.9 − O 2 d
CO 2 d = 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 volume,
during unit operation, percent by volume, 20.9 = Percentage of O2 in ambient air. dry basis.
dry basis.
100 Fc   100 − % H 2 O  
CO 2 w =  20.9   − O2w  ( Eq. F-14b )
20.9 F   100  
EP22AU06.052</GPH>
Where: CO2w = Hourly average CO2 concentration O2w = Hourly average O2 concentration
during unit operation, percent by volume, during unit operation, percent by volume,
wet basis. wet basis.
EP22AU06.051</GPH>
F, Fc = F-factor or carbon-based FC-factor

from section 3.3.5 of this appendix.
to this part, or other default SO2 emission
rate for the combustion of very low sulfur
E ( NOX ) h = ER ( NOX ) HI h
h
( Eq. F-24a )
20.9 = Percentage of O2 in ambient air. liquid or solid fuel, combinations of such Where:
%H2O = Moisture content of gas in the stack, fuels, or mixtures of such fuels with
percent. E(NOX)h = NOX mass emissions rate in lbs/hr
gaseous fuel, as approved by the
For any hour where Equation F–14b results for the hour.
Administrator under § 75.66, lb/mmBtu.
in a negative hourly average CO2 value, 0.0% ER(NOX)h = Hourly average NOX emission rate
HI = Hourly heat input rate, determined
CO2w shall be recorded as the average CO2 for hour h, lb/mmBtu, from section 3 of
using the procedures in section 5.2 of this
value for that hour. this appendix, from method 19 of appendix
appendix, mmBtu/hr. A to part 60 of this chapter, or from section
* * * * * * * * * * 3.3 of appendix E to this part. (Include
5. Procedures for Heat Input bias-adjusted NOX emission rate values,
8. Procedures for NOX Mass Emissions
where the bias-test procedures in appendix
* * * * * * * * * * A to this part shows a bias-adjustment
5.2.3 * * * 8.1 The owner or operator may use the factor is necessary.)
For any hour where Equation F–17 results hourly NOX emission rate and the hourly HIh = Hourly average heat input rate for hour
in a negative hourly heat input rate, 1.0 heat input rate to calculate the NOX mass h, mmBtu/hr. (Include bias-adjusted flow
mmBtu/hr shall be recorded and reported as emissions in pounds or the NOX mass rate values, where the bias-test procedures
the heat input rate for that hour. emission rate in pounds per hour, (as in appendix A to this part shows a bias-
* * * * * required by the applicable reporting format), adjustment factor is necessary.)
5.5.3.2 Use ASTM D2013–01, ‘‘Standard for each unit or stack operating hour, as
Method of Preparing Coal Samples for * * * * *
follows: 8.2 Alternatively, the owner or operator
Analysis,’’ for preparation of a daily coal 8.1.1 If both NOX emission rate and heat
sample and analyze each daily coal sample may use the hourly NOX concentration (as
input rate are monitored at the same unit or measured by a NOX concentration monitoring
for gross calorific value using ASTM D5865– stack level (e.g., the NOX emission rate value
01ae1, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Gross system) and the hourly stack gas volumetric
and the heat input rate value both represent flow rate to calculate the NOX mass emission
Calorific Value of Coal and Coke’’ (All ASTM all of the units exhausting to the common
methods are incorporated by reference under rate (lb/hr) for each unit or stack operating
stack), then (as required by the applicable hour, in accordance with section 8.2.1 or
§ 75.6 of this part.) reporting format) either:
On-line coal analysis may also be used if 8.2.2 of this appendix (as applicable). If the
(a) Use Equation F–24 to calculate the hourly NOX mass emissions are to be
the on-line analytical instrument has been hourly NOX mass emissions (lb)
demonstrated to be equivalent to the reported in lb, Equation F–26c in section 8.3
applicable ASTM methods under §§ 75.23 of this appendix shall be used to convert the
and 75.66. M ( NOX ) = ER ( NOX ) HI h t h
h h
( Eq. F-24 ) hourly NOX mass emission rates to hourly
NOX mass emissions (lb).
* * * * * Where: 8.2.1 When the NOX concentration
7. Procedures for SO2 Mass Emissions, Using M(NOX)h = NOX mass emissions in lbs for the monitoring system measures on a wet basis,
Default SO2 Emission Rates and Heat Input hour. first calculate the hourly NOX mass emission
Measured by CEMS ER(NOX)h = Hourly average NOX emission rate rate (in lb/hr) during unit (or stack)
for hour h, lb/mmBtu, from section 3 of operation, using Equation F–26a. (Include
The owner or operator shall use Equation
this appendix, from method 19 of appendix bias-adjusted flow rate or NOX concentration
F–23 to calculate hourly SO2 mass emissions
A to part 60 of this chapter, or from section values, where the bias-test procedures in
in accordance with § 75.11(e)(1) during the
combustion of gaseous fuel, for a unit that 3.3 of appendix E to this part. (Include appendix A to this part shows a bias-
uses a flow monitor and a diluent gas bias-adjusted NOX emission rate values, adjustment factor is necessary.)
monitor to measure heat input, and that where the bias-test procedures in appendix
qualifies to use a default SO2 emission rate A to this part shows a bias-adjustment E ( NOX ) = K Chw Q h ( Eq. F-26a )
under section 2.3.1.1, 2.3.2.1.1, or 2.3.6(b) of factor is necessary.) h
appendix D to this part. Equation F–23 may HIh = Hourly average heat input rate for hour Where:
also be applied to the combustion of solid or h, mmBtu/hr. (Include bias-adjusted flow E(NOX)h = NOX mass emissions rate in lb/hr.
liquid fuel that meets the definition of very rate values, where the bias-test procedures K = 1.194 × 10¥7 for NOX, (lb/scf)/ppm.
low sulfur fuel in § 72.2 of this chapter, in appendix A to this part shows a bias- Chw = Hourly average NOX concentration
combinations of such fuels, or mixtures of adjustment factor is necessary.) during unit operation, wet basis, ppm.
such fuels with gaseous fuel, if the owner or th = Monitoring location operating time for Qh = Hourly average volumetric flow rate
operator has received approval from the hour h, in hours or fraction of an hour (in during unit operation, wet basis, scfh.
Administrator under § 75.66 to use a site- equal increments that can range from one 8.2.2 When NOX mass emissions are
EP22AU06.057</GPH>
specific default SO2 emission rate for the fuel hundredth to one quarter of an hour, at the determined using a dry basis NOX
or mixture of fuels. option of the owner or operator). If the concentration monitoring system and a wet
combined NOX emission rate and heat basis flow monitoring system, first calculate
E h = ( ER ) ( HI ) ( Eq. F-23) input are monitored for all of the units in hourly NOX mass emission rate (in lb/hr)
a common stack, the monitoring location during unit (or stack) operation, using EP22AU06.056</GPH>
Where: operating time is equal to the total time Equation F–26b. (Include bias-adjusted flow
Eh = Hourly SO2 mass emission rate, lb/hr. when any of those units was exhausting rate or NOX concentration values, where the
ER = Applicable SO2 default emission rate for through the common stack; or bias-test procedures in appendix A to this
gaseous fuel combustion, from section (b) Use Equation F–24a to calculate the part shows a bias-adjustment factor is
2.3.1.1, 2.3.2.1.1, or 2.3.6(b) of appendix D hourly NOX mass emission rate (lb/hr). necessary.)
EP22AU06.055</GPH>
(100 − %H 2 O )
E ( NOX ) = K Chd Q h ( Eq. F-26b )
h
(100 )
EP22AU06.054</GPH>
Where: Chd = Hourly average NOX concentration Qh = Hourly average volumetric flow rate
E(NOX)h = NOX mass emissions rate, lb/hr. during unit operation, dry basis, ppm. during unit operation, wet basis, scfh
K = 1.194 x 10¥7 for NOX, (lb/scf)/ppm.
EP22AU06.053</GPH>
%H2O = Hourly average stack moisture

content during unit operation, percent by
M ( NOX ) = E h t h
h
( Eq. F-26c ) for hour ‘‘h’’, in hours or fraction of an
hour (in equal increments that can range
volume. Where: from one hundredth to one quarter of an
8.3 When hourly NOX mass emissions are M(NOx)h = NOX mass emissions for the hour, hour, at the option of the owner or
reported in pounds and are determined using lb. operator).
a NOX concentration monitoring system and Eh = Hourly NOX mass emission rate during 8.4 Use the following procedures to
a flow monitoring system, calculate NOX unit (or stack) operation from Equation F– calculate quarterly, cumulative ozone season,
mass emissions (lb) for each unit or stack 26a in section 8.2.1 of this appendix or and cumulative yearly NOX mass emissions,
operating hour by multiplying the hourly Equation F–26b in section 8.2.2 of this in tons:
NOX mass emission rate (lb/hr) by the unit appendix (as applicable), lb/hr. (a) When hourly NOX mass emissions are
th = Unit operating time or stack operating
operating time for the hour, as follows: time (as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter) reported in lb, use Eq. F–27.
∑ M( NOX ) h
M ( NOX ) = h =1
( Eq. F-27 )
time period
2000
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
cumulative ozone season, cumulative year- period (quarter, cumulative ozone season,
to-date). cumulative year-to-date).
∑ E( NOX ) h
th
M ( NOX ) = h =1
( Eq. F-27a )
time period
2000
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 (in appendix, and if the hourly moisture content
equal increments that can range from one is determined from wet- and dry-basis O2
for the given time period (quarter,
hundredth to one quarter of an hour, at the readings, use Equation F–31 to calculate the
cumulative ozone season, cumulative year- option of the owner or operator).
to-date). 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 season, If a correction for the stack gas moisture
cumulative year-to-date). content is required in any of the emissions
( O2d − O2 w )
%H 2 O = × 100 ( Eq. F-31)
O2d
Where: Appendix G to Part 75—Determination b. Revising Table K–1 of section 8.

% H2O = Hourly average stack gas moisture of CO2 Emissions c. Adding the number ‘‘2’’ after the
content, percent H2O
O2d = Dry-basis hourly average oxygen
* * * * * words ‘‘sections 1 and’’ in the definition
2.1.2 Determine the carbon content of of the variable M* in Equation K–5.
concentration, percent O2
each fuel sample using one of the following
O2w = Wet-basis hourly average oxygen The revisions and additions read as
methods: ASTM D3178–89 (1997) or ASTM
EP22AU06.061</GPH>
concentration, percent O2 follows:

5373–93 for coal; ASTM D5291–01
* * * * * ‘‘Standard Test Methods for Instrumental
Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen, and
Appendix K to Part 75—Quality
43. Appendix G to Part 75—is Assurance and Operating Procedures
amended by: Nitrogen in Petroleum Products and
Lubricants,’’ ultimate analysis of oil, or for Sorbent Trap Monitoring Systems
EP22AU06.060</GPH>
a. Revising section 2.1.2; computations based upon ASTM D3238–95

* * * * *
b. Replacing the identifier ‘‘D3174– (2000)e1 and either ASTM D2502–92 (1996)
or ASTM D2503–92 (1997) for oil; and 7.2.3 * * * The sample flow rate through
89’’ with the identifier ‘‘D3174–00’’ in a sorbent trap monitoring system during any
section 2.2.1; and computations based on ASTM D1945–96
(2001) or ASTM D1946–90 (2000) for gas. hour (or portion of an hour) in which the unit
EP22AU06.059</GPH>
c. Adding the number ‘‘(1997)’’ after * * * * * is not operating shall be zero.

the identifier ‘‘D3178–89’’ in section 44. Appendix K to Part 75 is amended * * * * *
2.2.2. by:
The revisions and additions read as a. Adding a sentence to the end of
EP22AU06.058</GPH>
follows: section 7.2.3; and
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 lead check is passed.
Post-test leak check ...................... ≤4% of average sampling rate ..... After sampling ............................... Sample invalidated.**
Ratio of stack gas flow rate to Maintain within ± 25% of initial Every hour throughout data col- Sample invalidated if more than
sample flow rate. ratio from first hour of data collection period. 5% of the hourly ratios or 5
lection period. hourly ratios (whichever is less
restrictive) are not maintained
within the acceptance criteria.**
Sorbent trap section 2 break- ≤5% of Section 1 Hg mass .......... Every sample ................................ Sample invalidated.**
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, and ≤20% RD if the sults from the trap resulting in
average concentration is ≤1.0 the higher Hg concentration.
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.
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 ................................ Sample invalidated.**
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.
Dry gas meter calibration (At 3 ori- Calibration factor (Y) within ±5% Prior to initial use and at least Recalibrate the meter at three ori-
fice initially, and 1 setting there- of average value from the initial quarterly thereafter. fice settings to determine a new
after). (3-point) calibration. value of Y.
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 ref- quarterly thereafter. used until specification is met.
erence sensor.
Barometer calibration ..................... Absolute pressure measured by Prior to initial use and at least Recalibrate. Instrument may not
instrument within ±10 mm Hg of quarterly thereafter. be used until specification is
reading with a mercury barom- met.
eter.
** However, if only one of the paired samples fails to meet this specification and the other sample meets all of the applicable QA criteria, the
results of the valid sample may be used for reporting under this part, provided that the measured Hg concentration is multiplied by a factor of
1.222. If both samples are invalidated and quality-assured data from a certified backup monitoring system, reference method, or approved alter-
native monitoring system are unavailable, substitute data must be used.
[FR Doc. 06–6819 Filed 8–21–06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

Proposed Rule: Air Programs: Federally Administered Emission Trading Programs Source Requirements Modification

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

Proposed Rule: Air Programs: Federally Administered Emission Trading Programs Source Requirements Modification

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tuesday,

August 22, 2006

Category NAICS code Examples of potentially regulated industries

TABLE 1.—MONITORING PLAN CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH XML FORMAT

Primary/secondary control indicator new XML reporting format.

TABLE 1.—MONITORING PLAN CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH XML FORMAT—Continued

TABLE 2.—PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE GENERAL RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS IN § 75.58

4. Proposed Revisions to the QA/QC assurance and quality control

TABLE 3.—PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE QA/QC RECORDKEEPING PROVISIONS OF § 75.59

TABLE 3.—PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE QA/QC RECORDKEEPING PROVISIONS OF § 75.59—Continued

question if all samples have ≤ 0.5 gr/100

This proposed rule is not subject to Environmental protection, Acid rain,

Trigger conditions Calculation routines

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

Monitor data availability (per- Duration (N) of CEMS outage Load

95 or more ................................ N ≤ 24 ....................................... Average .................................... 2160 hours * .............................. Yes

95 or more ................................................ N ≤ 24 ..................................................... Average ................................................... 2160 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

* * * * * p. Replacing the word ‘‘Component’’ (xi) Heat input rate formula ID

end of paragraph (f)(1)(xi); qualifying test for off-line calibration,

y. Adding paragraph (b)(4)(i)(J); * * * * * (4) * * *

with § 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(B), the owner or corresponding to the designated normal

or operator shall: representative for an affected unit shall 6.1.1;

1000 lb/hr of steam load, or scfh/

three QA operating quarters after the quarter

19 in appendix A–7 to part 60 of this 5.5.2; * * * * *

TABLE 1.—F AND FC-FACTORS 1

Coal (as defined by ASTM D388–99e1):

* * * * * for Heat of Combustion of Liquid bituminous coal, wood). Each Xi value

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

F, Fc = F-factor or carbon-based FC-factor

%H2O = Hourly average stack moisture

Where: Appendix G to Part 75—Determination b. Revising Table K–1 of section 8.

concentration, percent O2 follows:

a. Revising section 2.1.2; computations based upon ASTM D3238–95

c. Adding the number ‘‘(1997)’’ after * * * * * is not operating shall be zero.

follows: section 7.2.3; and

[FR Doc. 06–6819 Filed 8–21–06; 8:45 am]

You might also like