[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 224 (Monday, November 21, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 83160-83163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27849]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0382; FRL-9955-20-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT15


Revisions to Procedure 2--Quality Assurance Requirements for 
Particulate Matter Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary 
Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct 
final action to update a procedure in the New Source Performance 
Standards (NSPS). The procedure provides the ongoing quality assurance/
quality control (QA/QC) procedures for assessing the acceptability of 
particulate matter (PM) continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). 
The procedure explains the criteria for passing an annual response 
correlation audit (RCA) and the criteria for passing an annual relative 
response audit (RRA). The procedure currently contains a requirement 
that the annual QA/QC test results for affected facilities must fall 
within the same response range that was used to develop the existing PM 
CEMS correlation curve. As a result, some facilities are unable to meet 
the criteria for passing their annual QA/QC test because their 
emissions are now lower than the range previously set during their 
correlation testing. We are modifying the procedure to allow facilities 
to extend their PM CEMS correlation regression line to the lowest PM 
CEMS response obtained during the annual RCA or RRA, when these PM CEMS 
responses are less than the lowest response used to develop the 
existing correlation curve. This change will ensure that facilities 
that have reduced their emissions since completing their correlation 
testing will no longer be penalized because their lower emissions fall 
outside their initial response range. This action also corrects a 
typographical error in the procedure.

DATES: This rule is effective on February 21, 2017 without further 
notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by December 21, 2016. 
If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule 
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0382, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The 
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not 
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must 
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered 
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you 
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment 
contents located outside of the primary submission (e.g., on the Web, 
Cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission 
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or 
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective 
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning this direct final 
rule should be addressed to Ms. Kimberly Garnett, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air 
Quality Assessment Division, Measurement Technology Group (E143-02), 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1158; fax 
number: (919) 541-0516; email address: garnett.kim@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. Where can I obtain a copy of this action?
    D. Judicial Review
II. This Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive

[[Page 83161]]

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
    L. Determination Under Section 307(d)

I. General Information

A. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?

    The EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule 
because we view this as a non-controversial action and anticipate no 
adverse comment. This action modifies Procedure 2, sections 10.4(5) and 
(6), to allow facilities that have reduced their PM emissions since 
their PM CEMS correlation curve was developed to extend their 
correlation regression line to the point corresponding to the lowest PM 
CEMS response obtained during an annual RCA or RRA. This extended 
correlation regression line will then be used to determine if results 
of this RCA or RRA meet the criteria specified in section 10.4, 
paragraphs (5) and (6) of Procedure 2, respectively. This change will 
ensure that facilities that have reduced their emissions since 
completing their correlation testing will no longer be penalized 
because their lower emissions fall outside their initial response 
range. This action also corrects a typographical error in the 
introduction to section 10.4, paragraph (6) of Procedure 2. In the 
``Proposed Rules'' section of this Federal Register publication, we are 
publishing a separate proposed rule to modify Procedure 2. If the EPA 
receives any significant and relevant adverse comments, we will publish 
a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that 
this direct final rule will not take effect. In that case, we would 
address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the 
proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on the 
proposed rule. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this 
time. For further information about commenting on the proposed rule, 
see the ADDRESSES section of this direct final rule.

B. Does this action apply to me?

    The entities potentially affected by this rule include any facility 
that is required to install and operate a PM CEMS under any provision 
of title 40 of the CFR. If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

C. Where can I obtain a copy of this action?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this rule will also be available online at http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/emc/new.html.
D. Judicial Review.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by January 20, 2017. 
Clean Air Act section 307(d)(7)(B) further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure that was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule ``[i]f the 
person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that 
it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for 
public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the 
period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial 
review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of 
the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should 
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 
NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in 
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this direct 
final rule, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation 
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final action does not 
affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review, 
nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review 
must be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of this action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements (see section 307(b)(2) of the CAA).
    Rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this 
direct final rule, parties with objections are encouraged to file 
comments in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking 
published in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register 
to allow the EPA to withdraw this direct final rule and address the 
comment(s) in the final rulemaking.

II. This Final Action

    On January 12, 2004, the EPA promulgated Procedure 2--Quality 
Assurance Requirements for Particulate Matter Continuous Emission 
Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources (69 FR 1786). Procedure 2, 
sections 10.4(5) and (6), contain the requirement that when conducting 
the annual RCA or RRA QA/QC test procedures, a specified amount of the 
required number of PM CEMS response values, or data points, must lie 
within the PM CEMS response range used to develop the PM CEMS 
correlation curve. In other words, when conducting the annual QA/QC 
tests, the PM CEMS response values should not be higher or lower than 
the values used to develop the correlation curve for that PM CEMS. 
Recently, as PM emission limits have been reduced and facilities have 
installed more robust PM emission control devices, a number of 
facilities have found that their PM emissions are lower than their PM 
CEMS correlation curve. As a result, the facilities are now unable to 
meet the criteria for a passing the annual Procedure 2 QA/QC tests.
    In order to rectify this situation, we are modifying Procedure 2, 
sections 10.4(5) and (6), to allow facilities to extend their 
correlation regression line to the lowest PM CEMS response obtained 
during a RCA or RRA. When a RCA or RRA is performed, if any of the PM 
CEMS response values are lower than the response range of the existing 
correlation curve, the facility will take the existing correlation 
regression line and extend it to the lowest PM CEMS response value 
found during the annual RCA or RRA. The extension of the existing 
regression line will be accomplished by using the lowest PM CEMS 
response value, or x-value, found during the RCA or RRA, solving the 
regression line equation for the corresponding y-value and then 
extending the regression line to this new lowest point. This extended 
correlation regression line will then be used to determine if the RCA 
or RRA data meet

[[Page 83162]]

the criteria specified for a RCA or a RRA, in section 10.4(5) and (6), 
respectively.
    This action also corrects a typographical error in the introduction 
to section 10.4, paragraph (6) of Procedure 2. Paragraph (6) which 
originally read, ``To pass an RRA, you must meet the criteria specified 
in paragraphs (6)(i) and (ii) . . .'', is being corrected to read: ``To 
pass an RRA, you must meet the criteria specified in paragraphs (6)(i) 
through (iii) . . .'' Without this revision, paragraph (6)(iii) would 
remain unused in Procedure 2. This typographical correction is 
necessary to fulfill the intent of Procedure 2, section 10.4(6), when 
promulgated. See 69 FR 1786.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, 
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the PRA. This action does not contain any information collection 
activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. There are no 
small entities in the regulated industry for which Procedure 2 applies.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any 
state, local or tribal governments, or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. Procedure 2 is applicable to facility owners and 
operators who are responsible for one or more PM CEMS used for 
monitoring emissions. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect 
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in 
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental 
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order 
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an 
environmental health or safety standard. This regulatory action is a 
procedural change and does not have any impact on human health or the 
environment.

K. Congressional Review Act

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

L. Determination Under Section 307(d)

    Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(V), the Administrator determines 
that this action is subject to provisions of section 307(d). Section 
307(d) establishes procedural requirements specific to rulemaking under 
the CAA. Section 307(d)(1)(V) provides that the provisions of section 
307(d) apply to ``such other actions as the Administrator may 
determine.''

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Continuous emission monitoring systems, 
Particulate matter, Procedures.

    Dated: November 8, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
1. The authority citation for Part 60 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. In Appendix F, Procedure 2, in section 10.4, paragraphs (5) and (6) 
are revised to read as follows:

Appendix F to Part 60--Quality Assurance Procedures

* * * * *

Procedure 2--Quality Assurance Requirements for Particulate Matter 
Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources

    10.4 * * *
    (5) What are the criteria for passing a RCA? To pass a RCA, you 
must meet the criteria specified in paragraphs (5)(i) through (iii) 
of this section. If your PM CEMS fails to meet these RCA criteria, 
it is out of control, with the following exception: If any of the PM 
CEMS response values resulting from your RCA are lower than the 
lowest PM CEMS response value of your existing correlation curve, 
you may extend your correlation regression line to the point 
corresponding to the lowest PM CEMS response value obtained during 
the RCA. This extended correlation regression line must then be used 
to determine if the RCA data meets the criteria specified in 
paragraphs (5)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) For all 12 data points, the PM CEMS response value can be no 
greater than the greatest PM CEMS response value used to develop 
your correlation curve.
    (ii) For 9 of the 12 data points, the PM CEMS response value 
must lie within the PM CEMS output range used to develop your 
correlation curve.
    (iii) At least 75 percent of a minimum number of 12 sets of PM 
CEMS and reference method measurements must fall within a specified 
area on a graph of the correlation regression line. The specified 
area on the graph of the correlation regression line is

[[Page 83163]]

defined by two lines parallel to the correlation regression line, 
offset at a distance of 25 percent of the numerical 
emission limit value from the correlation regression line.
    (6) What are the criteria to pass a RRA? To pass a RRA, you must 
meet the criteria specified in paragraphs (6)(i) through (iii) of 
this section. If your PM CEMS fails to meet these RRA criteria, it 
is out of control, with the following exception: If any of the PM 
CEMS response values resulting from your RRA are lower than the 
lowest PM CEMS response value of your existing correlation curve, 
you may extend your correlation regression line to the point 
corresponding to the lowest PM CEMS response value obtained during 
the RRA; this extended correlation regression line must then be used 
to determine if the RRA data meets the criteria specified in 
paragraphs (6)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) For all three data points, the PM CEMS response value can be 
no greater than the greatest PM CEMS response value used to develop 
your correlation curve.
    (ii) For two of the three data points, the PM CEMS response 
value must lie within the PM CEMS output range used to develop your 
correlation curve.
    (iii) At least two of the three sets of PM CEMS and reference 
method measurements must fall within the same specified area on a 
graph of the correlation regression line as required for the RCA and 
described in paragraph (5)(iii) of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-27849 Filed 11-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P