[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14269-14272]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04904]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88326; File No. SR-CboeEDGA-2020-006]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt the Dark Routing Technique Routing Option; To Eliminate
References to the ROUD, ROUE, and ROUQ Routing Options; and To Reflect
Additional Routing Strategies for Which the Exchange May Route Orders
With a Short Sale Instruction

March 5, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 26, 2020, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as
a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGA'') proposes to
make certain changes to Rule 11.11 (Routing to Away Trading Centers)
and to make corresponding amendments to its Fee Schedule.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/edga/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to: (i) Adopt the DRT routing option under
proposed Rule 11.11(g)(2); (ii) amend Rule 11.11(g) to eliminate the
ROUD, ROUE, and ROUQ routing options and to eliminate any such
references in its Fee Schedule; and (iii) amend Rule 11.11(a) to make
clear that if a User \5\ selects the RDOT, RDOX, or INET routing
options, orders with a short sale \6\ instruction when a short sale
circuit breaker pursuant to Rule 201 of Regulation SHO \7\ (the
``SSCB'') is in effect are eligible for routing by the Exchange. The
Exchange intends to implement the proposed rule changes on March 2,
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(ee).
    \6\ See Exchange Rule 11.6(o). The term ``short sale'' is
defined as ``any sale of a security which the seller does not own or
any sale which is consummated by the delivery of a security borrowed
by, or for the account of, the seller.'' 17 CFR 242.200(a).
    \7\ See 17 CFR 242.201; Securities Exchange Act Release No.
61595 (February 26, 2010), 75 FR 11232 (March 10, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adopting DRT
    The Exchange proposes to adopt the DRT under subparagraph (g)(2) as
a new routing option available on the Exchange. As noted in proposed
Rule 11.11(g)(2), the DRT routing option would instruct the System \8\
to route to alternative trading systems (``ATSs'') included in the
System routing table.\9\ The proposed description of DRT is identical
to existing Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') and Cboe BYX Exchange,
Inc. (``BYX'') Rules 11.13(b)(3)(D) and Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGX'') Rule 11.11(g)(2).\10\ Thus, the proposed amendment is
intended to add certain system functionality currently offered by BZX,
BYX, and EDGX in order to provide a consistent technology offering for
Users across the Cboe affiliated exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(cc).
    \9\ The term ``System routing table'' refers to the proprietary
process for determining the specific trading venues to which the
System routes orders and the order in which it routes them. See
Exchange Rule 11.11(g).
    \10\ The Exchange notes that EDGX Rule 11.11(g)(2) was recently
modified to mirror BZX/BYX Rules 11.13(b)(3)(D). See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 88154 (February 12, 2020), 85 FR 8327
(February 13, 2020) (SR-CboeEDGX-2020-006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, for routing mechanisms that route orders to ATSs, the
Exchange routes such orders using a preselected sequence of venues
pursuant to the applicable System routing table and every order is
routed to such venues in that sequence.\11\ Stated another way, all
orders entered with a routing strategy that is eligible for routing to
ATSs will first seek liquidity on the Exchange and any unexecuted
portion of the order will then be routed in accordance with the pre-
established sequence in the System routing table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange notes that the current routing mechanism is
set forth in the System routing table, and is not referenced in
Exchange Rules. Nonetheless, the Exchange proposes to adopt the DRT
under subparagraph (g)(2) of Rule 11.11 to harmonize the Exchange's
rules with BZX/BYX Rule 11.13(b)(3)(D) and EDGX Rule 11.11(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the DRT routing mechanism would instead use a randomly
generated, weighted permutation to prioritize off-exchange venues based
on a ``score'' \12\ for each off-exchange venue, where a higher score
will result in a greater likelihood that the off-exchange venue will be
selected earlier in the permutation. The DRT routing mechanism will be
established in the System routing table and replace the existing
routing mechanism that routes orders to ATSs. The Exchange believes
that converting from this mechanical, sequential routing strategy to
the more dynamic strategy applied with DRT will allow an off-exchange
venue with a lower score to occasionally be selected before an off-
exchange venue with a higher score, and thus provides the Exchange with
the most accurate view of the quality at each market. As a result, the
Exchange believes that DRT may result in improved execution quality.
Additionally, converting to DRT will result in uniformity that will
simplify the Exchange's routing logic and

management across the Cboe equities platforms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Scores'' are assigned to each off-exchange venue by the
Exchange and are determined based on various factors, such as order
fill percentage, latency, and price improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eliminating ROUE, ROUQ, and ROUD
    In connection with the adoption of the DRT mechanism, the Exchange
proposes to amend Rule 11.11(g) and the Fee Schedule to eliminate any
references to routing options that are redundant due to such adoption.
    Currently, Rule 11.11(g) provides for a variety of routing options
under which the System will consider the quotations only of accessible
Trading Centers.\13\ Rules 11.11(g)(2) and 11.11(g)(3)(D) currently
provides for the ROUD and ROUQ routing options, respectively, which are
detailed in the System routing table.\14\ For orders entered with a
ROUD or ROUQ routing options, the System is first checked for available
shares and then is sent to destinations on the System routing table. If
shares remain unexecuted after routing, they are posted on the EDGA
Book,\15\ unless otherwise instructed by the User. The ROUD and ROUQ
routing options first seek liquidity on the Exchange's book, and will
subsequently route any unfilled portion of the order pursuant to the
System routing table. Given the proposed implementation of DRT, the
ROUD and ROUQ routing option will first seek liquidity on the
Exchange's book, and will subsequently route any unfilled portion via
DRT. Such a strategy is duplicative of the Exchange's ROUZ routing
option.\16\ Therefore, the Exchange proposes to eliminate subparagraph
(g)(2) and (g)(3)(D) of Rule 11.11, as well as Fee Code T from the
Exchange's Fee Schedule.\17\ Additionally, the Exchange proposes to
eliminate any references to the ROUD and ROUQ routing options in
subparagraph (g)(14) of Rule 11.11 and Fee Code Q.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Rule 600(b)(82) of Regulation NMS defines a ``Trading
Center'' as ``a national securities exchange or national securities
association that operates an SRO trading facility, an alternative
trading system, an exchange market maker, an OTC market maker, or
any other broker or dealer that executes orders internally by
trading as principal or crossing orders as agent.'' See 17 CFR
242.201(a)(9); 17 CFR 242.600(b)(82).
    \14\ While the System routing table is not publicly available,
the Cboe affiliated equity markets have provided a summary document
of its available routing options, which is subject to change at any
time. Such document details the strategies of the ROUD, ROUQ, ROUE,
ROUZ, and ROUT routing options referenced herein. See https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/features/cboe_exchange_routing-strategies.pdf. See also Exchange Rule 11.11(g), which provides that
the Exchange reserves the right to route orders simultaneously or
sequentially, maintain a different System routing table for
different routing options and to modify the System routing table at
any time without notice.
    \15\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(d).
    \16\ See Exchange Rule 11.11(g)(3)(E). See also supra note 14.
    \17\ Fee Code T references both the ROUD and ROUE routing
options, both of which are proposed to be eliminated from the Fee
Schedule. As such, the Exchange proposes to eliminate Fee Code T in
its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the ROUE routing option provided in Rule 11.11(g)(3)(A)
first seeks liquidity on the Exchange's book, second will route any
unfilled portion of the order to ATSs pursuant to the System routing
table, and third will route any unfilled portion of the order to other
Trading Centers.\18\ Given the proposed implementation of DRT, the ROUE
routing option will first seek liquidity on the Exchange's book, second
route any unfilled portion via DRT, and third will route any unfilled
portion of the order to other Trading centers. Such a strategy is
duplicative of the Exchange's ROUT routing option.\19\ Therefore, the
Exchange proposes to eliminate subparagraph (g)(3)(A) and references to
ROUE in subparagraphs (g)(14) and (g)(15) of Rule 11.11. The Exchange
also proposes to remove references to the ROUE trading strategy in Fee
Codes BY and K.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 14.
    \19\ See Exchange Rule 11.11(g)(3)(B). See also supra note 14.
    \20\ As noted above, Fee Code T references both ROUD and ROUE
routing strategies, both of which the Exchange is proposing to
eliminate and, as such, the Exchange proposed above to eliminate Fee
Code T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above proposed changes the Exchange also proposes to
re-alphabetize paragraph (g)(3) of Rule 11.11.
RDOT, RDOX, and INET Routing Clarification
    Under Rule 201 of Regulation SHO, a short sale order in a covered
security \21\ generally cannot be executed or displayed by a Trading
Center (such as the Exchange), at a price that is at or below the
current National Best Bid (``NBB'') \22\ when a SSCB is in effect for
the covered security. Based on this rule, there is no reason for a
Trading Center to route an order marked short when a SSCB is in effect
using a routing option that does not provide for a routed order to post
to another Trading Center's book. The Post to Away \23\ routing option
is able to post an order to another Trading Center's book and, thus,
Exchange Rule 11.11(a) explicitly provides that the Exchange will route
orders marked short using the Post to Away routing option when a SSCB
is in effect.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Rule 201(a)(1) of Regulation SHO defines the term ``covered
security'' to mean any ``NMS stock'' as defined under Rule
600(b)(48) of Regulation NMS. Rule 600(b)(48) of Regulation NMS
defines an ``NMS stock'' as ``any NMS security other than an
option.'' Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS defines an ``NMS
security'' as ``any security or class of securities for which
transaction reports are collected, processed, and made available
pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan, or an effective
national market system plan for reporting transactions in listed
options.'' See 17 CFR 242.201(a)(1); 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47); and 17
CFR 242.600(b)(48).
    \22\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(o).
    \23\ See Exchange Rule 11.11(g)(14). Under the Post to Away
routing option, the remainder of a routed order is routed to and
posted to the order book of a destination on the ``System routing
table'', as specified by the User.
    \24\ The Exchange notes that orders routed pursuant to the Post
to Away, RDOT, RDOX, and INET routing options that include a short
sale instruction are identified as ``short'' and are subject to the
receiving Trading Center's processes for handling short sale orders
in compliance with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, RDOT,\25\ RDOX,\26\ and INET \27\ routing options are
able to post an order to another Trading Center's book. Based on this
functionality, the Exchange currently allows orders marked short while
a SSCB is in effect to be routed using these routing options. As such,
the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 11.11(a) in order to codify
that, in addition to the Post to Away routing option, short orders
using the RDOT, RDOX, and INET routing strategies are also able to be
routed when a SSCB is in effect. Given that orders routed via the RDOT,
RDOX, and INET routing options are subjected to the receiving Trading
Center's processes for handling short sale orders in compliance with
Rule 201 of Regulation SHO in substantially the same manner as the Post
to Away routing option, the Exchange believes such functionality is
appropriate and that Exchange Rules should be amended to codify such
functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Exchange Rule 11.11(g)(5). RDOT is a routing option
under which an order checks the System for available shares and then
is sent to destinations on the System routing table. If shares
remain unexecuted after routing, they are sent to the NYSE and can
be re-routed by the NYSE. Any remainder will be posted to the NYSE,
unless otherwise instructed by the User.
    \26\ See Exchange Rule 11.11(g)(6). RDOX is a routing option
under which an order checks the System for available shares, is then
sent to the NYSE and can be re-routed by the NYSE. If shares remain
unexecuted after routing, they are posted on the NYSE book, unless
otherwise instructed by the User.
    \27\ See Exchange Rule 11.11(g)(4). INET is a routing option
under which an order checks the System for available shares and then
is sent to Nasdaq. If shares remain unexecuted after routing, they
are posted on the Nasdaq book, unless otherwise instructed by the
User.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of

Section 6(b) of the Act.\28\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \29\
requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section
6(b)(5) \30\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed
to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers. The proposed rule change also is designed to support the
principles of Section 11A(a)(1) \31\ of the Act in that it seeks to
assure fair competition among brokers and dealers and among exchange
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change to add the DRT routing
option is generally intended to provide a consistent technology
offering for the Cboe affiliated exchanges, which the Exchange believes
is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system. Further to this
point, a consistent technology offering, in turn, will simplify the
technology implementation, changes and maintenance by Users of the
Exchange that are also participants on BYX, BZX, and/or EDGX. The
proposed rule changes would also provide Users with access to
functionality that is intended to result in the efficient execution of
such orders and will provide additional flexibility as well as
increased functionality to the Exchange's System and its Users. As a
result, the Exchange's proposal will further remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and will also introduce the DRT routing strategy on the
Exchange which will provide market participants with greater
flexibility in routing orders without developing order routing
strategies on their own.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to remove references
to ROUD, ROUQ, and ROUE from Exchange Rules and the Fee Schedule will
remove impediments to the mechanism of a free and open market, thereby
protecting investors and the public interest. As stated above, the
Exchange is proposing that its routing functionality to ATSs will use
the DRT routing mechanism in the System routing table effective March
2, 2020. As a result, the ROUD, ROUQ, and ROUE routing options will
function in the same manner as other existing routing options. By
removing routing options that are duplicative of other existing routing
options and amending Exchange Rules to reflect a new routing option,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will remove impediments
to the mechanism of a free and open market and protect investors by
providing investors with increased transparency regarding rules that
reflect routing options currently available on the Exchange. Also, as
it pertains to the proposed changes to Exchange Rule 11.11(g) and the
Fee Schedule, the Exchange does not believe the proposed amendments
will permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or dealers
because the ROUD, ROUQ, and ROUE routing options will no longer be
available to all Users.
    Finally, the proposed changes to Rule 11.11(a) are designed to
ensure clarity in the Exchange's rulebook with respect to the routing
of orders in compliance with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO. In addition,
providing Users the ability to send short sale orders that are routable
pursuant to RDOT, RDOX, and INET routing options provides them
additional flexibility with regard to the handling of their orders. The
Exchange notes that orders that include a short sale instruction routed
pursuant to the RDOT, RDOX, or INET routing options are identified
``short'' and, therefore, subject to the receiving Trading Center's
processes for handling short sale orders in compliance with Regulation
SHO. The Exchange also notes that the Post to Away routing option is
similar to the RDOT, RDOX, and INET routing options in that they route
orders to other Trading Centers for posting and/or later execution.
Rule 11.11(a) currently provides that orders including a short sale
instruction routed pursuant to the Post to Away routing option is
eligible for routing when a SSCB is in effect. Thus, the proposed
amendments to Rule 11.11(a) is directly targeted at removing
impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market
and national market system, as well as to assure fair competition among
brokers and dealers and among exchange markets.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the
proposed amendment to allow orders with a short sale instruction and a
RDOX, RDOT, or INET routing option to be eligible to route when a SSCB
is in effect will promote consistency between other routing strategies
(i.e., Post to Away) that are similarly eligible to route when a SSCB
is in effect and are designed to route orders to other Trading Centers
for posting and/or later execution. The Exchange does not believe the
proposed change will have any impact on intermarket competition as the
RDOX, RDOT, and INET routing strategies are and will continue to be
available to all Users.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed amendments to add a reference
to the DRT routing option and eliminate references to the ROUD, ROUE,
and ROUQ routing options in Exchange Rules and the Fee Schedule will
eliminate any potential confusion to investors, as those routing
options will be duplicative of existing routing options after the
implementation of the DRT routing mechanism.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed amendments will
impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
provides routing services in a highly competitive market in which
participants may avail themselves of a wide variety of routing options
offered by self-regulatory organizations, other broker-dealers, market
participants' own proprietary routing systems, and service bureaus. In
such an environment, system enhancements such as the changes proposed
in this rule filing do not burden competition, because they can succeed
in attracting order flow to the Exchange only if they offer investors
higher quality and better value than services offered by others. The
Exchange reiterates that the proposed rule change to adopt DRT and
eliminate the ROUE, ROUQ, and ROUD strategies is being proposed in an
effort to add a consistent technology offering across the Cboe
affiliated Exchanges.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \32\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \33\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \34\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \35\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
has represented that adopting the DRT routing functionality and
eliminating references to certain duplicative routing options will
conform its routing strategies to its affiliated exchanges and will
eliminate any potential confusion for its Users. The Commission
believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest and hereby waives
the operative delay and designates the proposal as operative upon
filing.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \35\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \36\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \37\ to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGA-2020-006 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGA-2020-006. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGA-2020-006 and should be
submitted on or before April 1, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-04904 Filed 3-10-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


for PEMS.  However, we are concerned that the draft PS could limit the
flexibility of State and Local agencies to respond to unique operation
scenarios at facilities.  We would encourage EPA to add language to
draft PS-16 that allows the State and Local agencies some limited
discretion when approving PEMS for use at existing facilities.  (0022)

	Response:  Discretion for alternatives to monitoring requirements, in
some cases,  have already been delegated to the States by EPA.  Approval
for alternatives to monitoring requirements that are used to show
compliance with Federal rules  has been reserved by the Agency.  Unique
operating scenarios are best addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Sensor Evaluation System

	80.  Comment:  We recommend that the term “Sensor Validation
System” be used since “Sensor Evaluation System” is technically an
incorrect PEMS term. The term “Sensor Validation System” should be
used since all past PEMS documents published by EPA use this term.  Less
confusion for existing and new PEMS would occur.  (0028)

	Response:  We have chosen to use “sensor evaluation system” instead
of  “sensor validation system” because the latter term is the
prescribed name of the validation system of a leading PEMS manufacturer.

	81  Comment:  We recommend that criteria for the creation of the
ability of the sensor evaluation system to determine failed sensors and
to reconcile failed sensors and other input values be established as was
done in the January 1996 PEMS example requirements.  The proposed PS-16
is too vague and will result in disparate requirements across the
country when implemented by the State and Local agencies.  Also,
case-by-case approval will result in a burden to the agencies even in
cases of previously approved sensor evaluation system types.  We
recommends that the following criteria be followed as specified in the
January 1996 PEMS Protocol:

Prior to the initial RATA, a demonstration of the ability of the PEMS to
identify failed sensors and to reconcile failed sensors while
maintaining the accuracy of the PEMS to within 20% of the original PEMS
value will be performed.  This demonstration will be conducted over the
entire operating range of the emission unit.  The demonstration will
consist of: artificially failing each sensor and then ascertaining the
accuracy of the PEMS when utilizing the calculated sensor value;
artificially failing each combination of

sensors and then ascertaining the accuracy of the PEMS when utilizing
the calculated sensor values; and the ability of the PEMS to alert the
operator regarding the status of PEMS accuracy in the unlikely event of
sensor failure or failures.  The results of the demonstration will be
reported in the initial verification test report.  (0028)

	Response:  The specifications for the 1996 PEMS protocol were written
around the most popular PEMS in use at that time.  Since then, the use
of other simpler PEMS has necessitated our expanding the criteria to fit
a variety of systems.  We have added flexibility to accommodate other
acceptable systems.  We do not believe a system to check for failed
sensors on a daily basis needs to be complicated to be effective.  We do
not believe this flexibility adds vagueness to the rule nor results in
disparate applications.

	82.  Comment:  Sections 6.1.8 and 9.2 require the sensor evaluation
system to check the integrity of each PEMS input at least daily.  Given
the limited number of hours a peaking station must operate it
turbine-generators, we recommend daily sensor evaluation checks be
conducted only when the units have operated for more than one hour in
any calendar day.  (0024)

	Response:  We agree with the commenter and have added a note that the
system evaluation check is only required if the PEMS is operated for
more than one hour in any calendar day.

Graphic Representation of PEMS Relationships

	83.  Comment:  We find crucial the use of graphical representations to
see the relationships between process sensors and emissions.  The
presentation of these graphs should be required to document the PEMS
provider recommended extrapolation.

	Response:  In Section 6.1.2, the PS does require that the integrity of
the parameter operating envelopes be demonstrated using graphs and data
from the PEMS development process.  Section 6.1.5 also states that if
your PEMS is developed on the basis of linear or nonlinear regression
analysis, you must make available the paired data (preferably in graphic
form) used to develop or train the model.

	84.  Comment:  A graph of the distribution of residuals (observed -
predicted emissions) should be prepared for all PEMS data used in model
development, in the units of the standard.  This plot will demonstrate
whether or not the residuals are distributed normally.  (0038)

	Response:  See the response to Comment 83.

Sensor Envelopes

	85.  Comment:  We recommend that PEMS be allowed to be extrapolated by
5 percent beyond the range of the process sensor values encountered
during the RATA testing.  We recommend that PEMS not be limited to the
range of process sensor values encountered during PEMS RATA testing as
this may unduly limit the operating range of the PEMS compared to the
data used to create the PEMS.  The EPA clearly recognizes the need to
extrapolate as this is allowed for ambient conditions.

	For backup fuels, no RATA testing of the PEMS for the backup fuel is
required if “the effects of the alternative fuel on predicted
emissions or diluent were addressed in the model training process.”
This is identical to the case of the wider operating window for a
process sensor discussed above.  During the data gathering to create the
PEMS and the subsequent model building process, the effects of a wider
operating window for each

process sensor and ambient sensor used in the PEMS was taken into
account.  (0028)

	Response:  Extrapolation is allowed for ambient conditions because
yearly variations cannot be simulated during the model development
tests.  The PEMS operation is restricted to the sensor envelopes
encountered in the PEMS development, not the initial RA test.

	86.  Comment:  In no case should the PEMS be limited to the range of
process sensors encountered during the RATA tests.  Instead, PEMS should
be limited to the process sensor ranges encountered during the data
gathering to create the PEMS.  In some cases, RATA testing may be
limited due to the economics of the process unit on the day or days of
testing (i.e. must run at higher rates because of an unexpected outage
and can only vary fuel flow by 20 percent whereas during data gathering
fuel flow was varied by 50 percent).  Since the PEMS was developed over
a wider range than the subset range evaluated during the successful RATA
testing, penalizing the PEMS owner by ruling the PEMS as inaccurate
simply because the process sensor range was not available during the
RATA testing would unjustly punish the PEMS owner and not reflect the
effort used to create the PEMS for the wider range of operation.

	Response:  We agree that PEMS operation is acceptable if process
sensors are operated during the ranges encountered during the data
gathering to create the PEMS, not the ranges encountered during the RATA
tests.  We have ensured that PS-16 plainly says this.

	87.  Comment:  The EPA should allow some variation to the operating
ranges of any operating parameter as part of the QA evaluation.  It is
recommend that input parameters be allowed to vary ± 15 percent outside
of the range during the initial test program to allow for some
instrument drift, measurement uncertainty, and operating flexibility.
Our experience has shown this to be an acceptable range for the
prediction models to be considered accurate.  (0038)

	Response:  See the responses to comments 85.

Inputs Calibrations

	88.  Comment:  All sources should be required to calibrate input
parameter controls on a minimum of a quarterly basis, and document the
calibrations.  (0038)

	Response:  A good QA program would incorporate calibrations and
documentation on a regular basis.  The performance specification
requires sensor recalibrations per manufacturer recommendations.  These
recalibrations will vary depending upon the type of sensor.  We have not
specified a recalibration interval because of this, and we believe the
daily sensor evaluation check will detect malfunctioning sensors on an
ongoing basis.

Detailing Neural Network PEMS Calculations

	89.  Comment:  Neural network PEMS are basically black box prediction
algorithms and there is an inability to provide the EPA with the
calculation algorithms for verification.  Quite often, neural network
PEMS are retrained prior to annual RATA testing, and therefore, one
cannot accurately determine the relative accuracy of the pre-training
PEMS.  Furthermore, PEMS calculations should always be published so that
one could have the ability to verify emissions predictions after the
fact.  For instance, facility data acquisition systems log operating
parameters used for the predictive emissions calculations.  When the
equation is published, EPA could manually verify a prediction as part of
a PEMS audit to demonstrate that the emissions are being calculated
accurately and correctly.  With neural networks, this type of audit is
not possible and hence, should not be allowed.  PEMS calculations should
always be published in a report to ensure that the same calculations are
being made throughout the year.  (0038)

	Response:  A PEMS is not allowed to be retrained before an initial or
annual RATA test.  The algorithms and trained models used in neural
network PEMS do not lend themselves to manual calculation checks.
Understanding such complex neural network relationships and making spot
check calculations would be beyond the capabilities of most auditors and
report reviewers anyway.  We do not believe requiring such PEMS to
publish their predictive relationships would offer much benefit.

Data Substitution

	90.  Comment:  Data substitution of input parameters should not be
allowed. Although it is technically possible, for instance, to provide
an expected oxygen value as a function of fuel flow, it allows the
source to delay corrective action of its metering. Should a PEMS input
parameter signal be lost, the PEMS should be flagged as “input
parameter malfunction” and the system should be considered out of
control or out of service.  PEMS calculations would therefore be invalid
until the input signal was repaired.  In the event of an input signal
malfunction, it is recommended that EPA require a data substitution
routine whereby the source must substitute the maximum emission rate
from the previous 90 days (or year) for all hours that the unit is
operating, and the input signal(s) required for a calculation are out of
service.  (0038)

	Response:  Data substitution of input parameters is only allowed with
Administrator permission.  Permission would be contingent upon a
corrective action plan that limit the use of substitution data after a
fault.  The Agency has studied the data substitution capabilities of a
major PEMS system and has found the process to have merit.  The proposed
application of PS-16 for market-based monitoring has been dropped from
the final rule.

PEMS Design

	91.  Comment:  A means analysis as a function of load conditions should
be prepared as part of the PEMS report.  This would show the min, max,
and mean value for all of the various operating parameters during the
test program.  For instance, with a gas-fired boiler, testing might take
place at 30, 40, …100 percent load conditions.  The means analysis
would show the min, max, and mean value for each operating parameter and
measured emission levels for every load condition to establish the
variation of each parameter across the operating range.  We have
examples of this for EPA review, if desired.  (0038)

	Response:  An analysis of means may be a useful tool in evaluating PEMS
and may be used in the PEMS development.  However, we believe the
statistical test that are currently required in PS-16 offer adequate
establishment of  PEMS sufficiency.

Specific Section Comments

Section 1.0

	92.  Comment:  The applicability of PS 16, as currently proposed, is
very broad. We suggest limiting the applicability to only those PEMS
used to satisfy continuous emission monitoring requirements in lieu of
CEMS.  PS 16 should not be required for sources using standard emission
calculation methodologies (like AP-42 or unit specific emission factors)
as a means to demonstrate compliance with emission limits in permits or
state rules, which require periodic monitoring instead of continuous
emission monitoring.  An example would be emissions from a small boiler
that are calculated based upon fuel usage. The proposed version of PS-16
leaves it up to the discretion of the regulatory agency or permit writer
to apply PS-16 in these types of situations.  (0010)

	Response:  Predictive emission monitoring systems are used for
continuous monitoring applications, not periodic monitoring.
Performance Specification 16 may be used in the example of the small
boiler emission being predicted from fuel usage if the prediction
contains at least 3 variables.

	93.  Comment:  EPA should clearly indicate in this section that PEMS
are not mandated and are used at the discretion of the owner/operator as
an alternative to regulatory requirements for CEMS.  The preamble to the
PS-16 proposal notes that PEMS are not mandated by any Federal rule, and
indicates that PEMS are sometimes used for steam generating units as an
alternative to CEMS.  We agree with this statement, and recommend that
EPA clearly state in this section that PEMS are a CEMS alternative for
application to combustion sources.  This is necessary to ensure that the
specification published in Appendix B of 40 CFR, Part 60 clearly
provides the context for PEMS use. In addition, it should be stated that
PEMS are used at the discretion of the owner/operator as an alternative,
pursuant to acceptance by the regulatory authority.

	The General Information section in the preamble states “Predictive
emission monitoring systems are not currently required in any Federal
rule.  However, they may be used under the NSPS to predict nitrogen
oxides emissions from small industrial, commercial, and institutional
steam generating units.  In some cases, PEMS have been approved as
alternatives to CEMS for the initial 30-day compliance test at these
facilities. Various State and Local regulations are incorporating PEMS
as an emission monitoring tool.”  We understand that EPA is proposing
PS-16 to provide standard criteria for evaluating PEMS, which are
beginning to be implemented as an alternative to CEMS for some
applications.  However, the specification should clearly indicate that
PEMS are not mandated and that PEMS are used as an alternative to other
monitoring requirements, such as a requirement for CEMS.  In addition,
PEMS are still a developmental technology and the specification should
clearly indicate that PEMS are used at the discretion of the owner/
operator.  This context needs to be clearly stated in this section.
Since the explanatory text in the preamble is not included in the
specification that will be published in Appendix B of Part 60, EPA
should add the appropriate text within the body of PS-16 to ensure
clarity in regard to PEMS application.  (0019)

	Response:   Performance Specification 16 does not mandate PEMS but sets
the performance criteria that PEMS must meet for acceptability.
Although PS-16 is being applied to parts 60, 61, and 63, they may also
be applied to other PEMS as mandated. published in Appendix B of Part
60, they may be applied to PEMS wherever mandated.

Section 1.1

	94.  Comment:   The proposal states that if your PEMS contains a
“diluent measuring component” then it must be tested as well. This
requirement does not match the requirements for CEMS.  Sources should
calculate the RATA results directly in terms of the standard as done
under Parts 60 and 75. Separate testing of the diluent component is not
necessary and should be removed.  (0018)

	Response:   The diluent component must be tested as part of the PEMS if
the terms of the standard include the diluent.  This has been clarified.

	95.  Comment:  The proposed performance specification should only apply
to PEMS developed and implemented after the promulgation date of the
final specification. Owners or operators with existing PEMS have already
come to some agreement with their local permitting authorities on the
accuracy, RATA validation, and associated QA/QC requirements, and
therefore, it would be overly burdensome to require, or imply, that an
existing PEMS would have to be re-developed and validated.  Based upon
the proposed standard the cost of the initial development and validation
of a PEMS would approach, or exceed, the cost to install a CEMS system.
Owners or operators of existing PEMS should not be required to absorb
the added costs required to resubmit a second time.  (0026)

	Response:  It is not the intent in promulgating PS-16 that
currently-certified PEMS be recertified.  Performance Specification 16
applies to new PEMS that are brought into operation after its
promulgation date.

Section 1.1.1

	96.  Comment:  The proposed rule states, “We require that a relative
accuracy (RA) test and accompanying statistical tests be passed in the
initial certification test before your PEMS is acceptable for use in
demonstrating compliance with applicable requirements.”  Since the
source must be operating in order to conduct a RATA, the specification
should allow for an appropriate window of time after startup in which to
conduct the tests required for PEMS initial certification. This approach
is consistent with the majority of underlying regulations, which may
allow sources up to 180 days (after startup) to conduct initial
certification tests.  (0010)

	Response:  Predictive emission monitoring systems are subject to the
same certification timelines after source startup as CEMS.  Those
timelines are more appropriately discussed in the applicable regulations
and not the PS.  For the New Source Performance Standards, these
timelines are discussed in Part 60.13.

Section 2.1.2

	97.  Comment:  Section 2.1.2 refers to Section 8.1.6 which does not
exist.  This should be corrected to refer to Section 8.2.  (0015)

	Response:  The commenter is correct.  This revision has been made.

Section 3 .3

	98.  Comment:  The definition of defective sensor should exclude the
text "operates outside the approved operating envelope".  A defective
sensor should only include the calibration drift outside of prearranged
limits or failure.  Sensors that read outside of the demonstrated
operational range are not defective.  The sensors are still providing
valid or "real" process data, however, it is just that the data being
provided is outside the range or envelop where the PEMS was validated.
(0026)

	Response:  We have clarified the definition to note that a defective
sensor may be functioning properly but its input is undefined by the
PEMS and the resulting predicted emission is not validated.

Section 3.5

	99. Comment:  This section provides the following definition:
“Operating envelope means the defined range of a parameter input that
is established during PEMS development.  Emission data generated from
parameter inputs that are outside the operating envelope are not
considered quality assured and are therefore, unacceptable.”
Oftentimes, a device used to satisfy required parametric monitoring
requirements will also be used as part of a PEMS.  Thus, there is
potential for overlap and conflict between the PEMS operating envelope
and OPLs established during a compliance performance test.  It is
unclear how a source would deal with these types of situations.
Additionally, it is unclear which performance specification (PS-16 or
the future PS-17) would apply to sensors used for both parametric
monitoring and as part of a PEMS.  (0010)

	Response:  See the response to Comment 70.  Where there are PEMS and
parametric input sensor overlap, the sensors that are a part of the PEMS
just comply with PS-16 and the sensors that are part of the parametric
system must comply with PS-17.

	100.  Comment:  The EPA uses the phrase ”operating envelope” and we
generally understand the intent is to define those parameter values that
would be expected to occur during normal operation.  We seek
clarification, however, that it is not the EPA’s intention to require
sources to conduct reference method relative accuracy testing of the
PEMS at conditions that exceed permitted emissions limits.  We
understand that the PEMS must accurately predict exceedances, but have
concern that State and Local agencies may interpret the validation
requirements to include testing above the emission limits.  (0022)

	Response:  The commenter is correct.  It is not EPA’s intention to
require sources to conduct reference method relative accuracy testing of
a PEMS at conditions that exceed permitted emission limits.

Section 3.6

	101.  Comment:  The definition of PEMS in the last sentence reads: “A
PEMS may or may not predict emissions data that are corrected for
diluent.”  We request clarification as to the purpose or underlying
intent of this statement, specifically the wording “may or may not.”
 We propose wording to clarify this, such as: “A PEMS may predict
emissions data that are corrected for diluent if all relevant QA tests
are passed.”  (0016)

	Response:  We have clarified the statement to read:  “A PEMS may
predict emissions data that are corrected for diluent if the relative
accuracy and relevant QA tests are passed in the emission units
corrected for diluent.”

Section 3.9

	102.  Comment:  The definition of RAA should be revised so that the
audit is required every “QA operating quarter” in accordance with
the definition in §72.2.  This would reduce the testing burden for
infrequently operated units and reduce unnecessary emissions that would
be incurred for a unit that would not otherwise operate but would simply
be brought online to meet the audit requirement.  It is recommended that
PS-16 also include grace periods similar to those in Part 75 to allow
sources time to perform tests (RAAs and RATAs) after coming on- line
after an outage.  (0018)

	Response:  The elements of the Part 72.2 definition of QA operating
quarter have been incorporated in the definition of RAA.  A grace period
similar to the allowance in Part 75 is better addressed in the general
provisions to monitoring rather than the PS.

	103.  Comment:  We ask that the requirement for a quarterly audit using
a portable analyzer be removed.  Our experience on uncontrolled turbines
has demonstrated that predictive correlations using process parameters
are stable with time.  As long as the instrumentation is maintained and
equipment hardware design is unchanged, PEMS have been found to be
stable.   (0026)

	Response:  See the response to Comment 55.  The quarterly audits are to
ensure that sensors and instrumentation are maintained and equipment
hardware design is unchanged.

Section 3.10

	104. Comment:  It is recommended that the RATA frequency be once every
four QA operating quarters consistent with the requirement for RATAs in
Part 75.  (0018)

	Response:  See the response to Comment 102.

	105.  Comment:  The definition of a RATA includes the following
statements; “The relative accuracy test audit means a RA test that is
performed at least once every four calendar quarters while the PEMS is
operating at the normal operating level.  The RATA must not be conducted
in consecutive quarters.”  The last sentence in this definition is not
necessary and we recommend that it be omitted.  There may be situations
in which a source would choose to conduct a RATA in consecutive quarters
(significant changes to the PEMS or major component replacement).  If
the agency is concerned about the elapsed time between RATAs being no
greater than 3 quarters, this is appropriately addressed in the first
sentence, which requires the RATA to be performed at least once every
four calendar quarters.  (0010)

	Response:  We believe the sentence that RATAs not be conducted in
consecutive quarters is important to encourage the keeping of RATAs
dispersed and more representative of PEMS performance over time.  The
first sentence only requires a RATA per four calendar quarters, which
could result in operation periods of 6 quarters between RATAs.

Section 6.1.2

	106.  Comment:  We recommend rewording the second sentence of this
section as follows:  “Before you evaluate your PEMS through the
certification test, you must specify the input parameters your PEMS
uses, define their range of minimum and maximum values (operating
envelope), and demonstrate the integrity of the parameter operating
envelope using graphs and data from the PEMS development process to
provide justification for the parameter operating envelope.”  We
recommend the Agency allow sources to use any of the following tools to
justify an appropriate operating envelope: vendor information,
engineering calculations, PEMS test data and extrapolations, as
appropriate.  (0010)

	Response:  We have taken the commenter’s recommendation and reworded
the sentence as follows:  “Before you evaluate your PEMS through the
certification test, you must specify the input parameters your PEMS
uses, define their range of minimum and maximum values (operating
envelope), and demonstrate the integrity of the parameter operating
envelope using graphs and data from the PEMS development process, vendor
information, or engineering calculations, as appropriate.”

	107.  Comment:  I have concern that the requirement to demonstrate the
integrity of the parameter operating envelopes could be reviewed with
undue stricture. The validity of the relationship between the operating
parameters and emissions does not magically vanish simply because the
value of a parameter extends beyond that experienced during the training
period or exhibited during a performance test.  One would expect that
the correlations that exist within the range of the training data would,
naturally, to a reasonable degree, extend beyond such an envelope.  The
validity of a PEMS parameter envelope is dictated by the strength of the
relationship, not the range of test points.  Limiting PEMS operation to
the range of the parameter inputs encountered

during the certification test is unnecessarily restrictive.  (0018)

	Response:   Section 6.1.2 only requires that the parameter operating
envelopes be clearly defined.  The validity of a PEMS parameter envelope
may be dictated by the strength of the relationship but that
relationship must be established up front and validated through graphs,
PEMS development data, vendor information, or engineering calculations.
Parameter operating envelopes are only restricted to the ranges
experienced during the certification test when the operating envelopes
are no clearly defined before the certification test.  The envelopes
may, however, be expanded later when new information is provided to
support such expansions.

	108.  Comment:  We find the proposed wording to be unclear as to
whether EPA is requiring operation within the bounds of data points used
to develop the model, or within the bounds of data points tested in the
certification RATA.  It is presumed that the requirement relates to data
points used to develop the model because the alternative interpretation
of restricting operations to the bounds of data points tested during the
certification RATA would lead to totally impractical operating
restrictions due to the inability to test through a full range of
uncontrollable conditions such as ambient temperature and humidity.  We
believe that a certain level of extrapolation beyond the actual data
points tested is both reasonable and appropriate and such extrapolation
should be expressly authorized.  For example, in Section 6.1.4, EPA
addresses the use of extrapolation to address issues such as changes in
absolute ambient humidity.  We urge EPA to allow the use of emission
data that is extrapolated to some percentage beyond the last data point
if graphic or mathematical relationships indicate that this data is
valid.  (0036)

	Response:  See the response to Comment 85.  The wording in Section
6.1.2 has be clarified to note that PEMS operation must remain with the
parameter envelopes established during the model development.

Section 6.1.4

	109.  Comment:  This section requires a detailed analysis of the
effects of ambient conditions upon the PEMS.  This particular section
contains helpful guidance for the development of a PEMS and would be
more appropriately contained in a guidance document instead of a PS.
(0010)

	Response:  This section gives general information and suggestions on
how one might explain the effects of ambient conditions on a PEMS, if
they exist.  It is intentionally brief and non-prescriptive.

Section 6.1.7

	110.  Comment:  This section addresses sensor location and repair by
stating, “We recommend you install sensors in an accessible location
in order to perform repairs and replacements.  Permanently installed
platforms or ladders may not be needed.  If you install sensors in an
area which is not accessible, you may be required to shut down the
emission unit to repair or replace a sensor.”  As with Section 6.1.4,
this section provides helpful guidance and we believe it would be more
appropriately placed in a guidance document instead of the PS.  Sensor
accessibility issues, which could result in shutting down an emission
unit in order to make repairs, should be left to the discretion of the
PEMS owner/operator.  (0010)

	Response:   Even though sensor accessibility issues are left to the
discretion of the PEMS owner/operator, we believe the note is a helpful
reminder against future problems with PEMS operation due to inaccessible
failed sensors.  Equipment specifications are also an important element
of performance specifications and sensor siting precautions are added
here as helpful suggestions.

	111.  Comment:  The PS contains the following statement:  “If
necessary after repairing or replacing a sensor, correct the process
data to match the data obtained from the originally tested sensor, or
conduct another RA test.”  Further guidance and explanation should be
provided to clarify “correct the process data to match the data
obtained from the originally tested sensor.”  It is unclear what type
of data corrections are required by this statement.  (0010)

	Response:  In cases where a reference value is set for a sensor that is
being replaced, the new sensor response may be adjusted to match the
original sensor output.    The statement in Section 6.1.7 has been
clarified.

	112.  Comment:  We agree that sensors should be calibrated as often as
needed.  However, calibration intervals should not be restricted by
manufacturer's recommendations.  Manufacturers can not conceive of all
possible operating environments nor can they be expected to customize
calibration intervals for each customer.  It is recommended that
manufacturer's recommended intervals be the starting point and that the
flexibility be allowed for the owner or operator to be able to change
the calibration interval based upon the owners or operators own
experience.  In the instances where the calibration interval is
different than the manufacture's recommended calibration interval,
documentation supporting the change would be maintained as a
recordkeeping requirement.  (0026)

	Response:   The commenter’s recommendations are currently in the
performance specifications.  The sensors may be calibrated as frequently
as desired as long as the manufacturer recommended calibration interval
is not exceeded.  However, exceeding the manufacturer recommended
calibration interval because of owner or operator experience is best
handled on a case-by-case basis by petitions through the EPA Regional
Office or the Permitting Authority.

Section 6.1.8

	113.  Comment:  The proposal states that, “you must have prior
approval before you use reconciled data.”  In order to facilitate the
Agency’s stated goal to “establish standardized performance
requirements” for PEMS, I suggest including a standardized procedure
for making such a determination.  If the PEMS allows the parameter input
data to be manually invalidated and can calculate new results based on
reconciled inputs, then relative accuracy determinations can be made
based on various combinations of actual and reconciled data sets.  I
recommend that reconciliation be allowed only for combinations where the
PEMS was able to pass the relative accuracy requirement using reconciled
data at each load level during initial certification.  (0018)

	Response:  The EPA does not have sufficient information on potential
systems that reconcile data to establish standardized performance
requirements at this time.  We have evaluated the data reconciliation
system of a prominent PEMS provider and found the system to work
reliably well.  However, the purpose of the underlying monitoring
requirements and the confidence in the reconciling techniques themselves
favor approval of this practice on a case-by-case basis.

Section 6.1.9

	114.  Comment:  With respect to the concept of “parameter envelope
exceedances,” we ask that the Agency help the regulated community
understand the consequences of the data outside the operating range
before taking PS-16 to final promulgation, and how this condition
relates to the “operating envelope.”  Specifically, what are the
compliance consequences of parameter envelope exceedances?  Is data
collected under these conditions treated as missing data from continuous
emissions monitoring systems?  We would have concerns if parameter
envelope exceedances have an additional significance with respect to
compliance with the underlying standard.  (0022)

	Response:  Parameter envelope exceedances simply mean that data
collected under these conditions are out of the calibration range and
are not adequately quality assured.  The consequences of such a
condition depends upon the data quality objectives.

Section 6.2

	115.  Comment:  The criteria for a valid hourly average should allow
for a valid reporting hour with less than 100 percent data capture.  In
proposed Section 6.2, it is stated that “All valid data recorded by
the PEMS must be used to calculate the emission value.  For a valid
hourly average emission value, each 15-minute quadrant of the hour in
which the unit combusts any fuel must contain at least one valid
emission value.”  This implies that at a minimum, a PEMS hourly
average must be based on four, 15-

minute data points and that all four points are required for a valid
hour.  The PEMS specifications from PS-16 may be used for both Part 60
and Part 63 sources, and data

validation requirements from existing regulations include data averaging
criteria that are less stringent than the proposal.  PS-16 should
include similar requirements for data recording and averaging as those
currently in Parts 60 and 63.

	Emissions monitoring requirements in §60.13(h) indicate: “…For
continuous monitoring systems other than opacity, 1-hour averages shall
be computed from four or more data points equally spaced over each
1-hour period.”  There are a number of examples where fewer than four
of the 15-minute data points are acceptable for a valid hour.  For
example, the NSPS for electric generating units (Subpart Da) indicates
at §60.47a(g):   “The 1-hour averages required under paragraph
§60.13(h) are expressed in ng/J (lb/million Btu) heat input and used to
calculate the average emission rates under

§60.46a… At least two data points must be used to calculate the
1-hour averages.”

	This standard also includes requirements for less than 100 percent data
capture for valid hours when computing daily averages and requisite days
in the 30 day compliance period (see §60.47a(f)).  Similarly, under
Part 63, §63.8(g)(2) identifies the acceptable approach for CEMS data:
“…Data from CEMS for measurement other than opacity, unless
otherwise specified in the relevant standard, shall be reduced to 1-hour
averages computed from four or more data points equally spaced over each
1-hour period, except during periods when calibration, quality
assurance, or maintenance activities pursuant to provisions of this part
are being performed.  During these periods, a valid hourly average shall
consist of at least two data points with each representing a 15-minute
period.”

Alternatively, an arithmetic or integrated 1-hour average of CEMS data
may be used.

Time periods for averaging are defined in §63.2.

	The implied requirement for data averaging and valid hourly data
implied in PS-16 is excessive in comparison to the requirement in the
general provisions for both Parts 60 and 63.  The EPA should not impose
PEMS requirements that exceed the stringency of CEMS requirements under
Part 60 or 63, and this should be clarified in PS-16.  (0019)

	Response:  The reference to valid hourly data in Section 6.2 has been
dropped.  This information is already addressed in the general
provisions to the regulations (e.g. §60.13).

Section 6.2

	116.  Comment:  To provide flexibility and to make the PEMS monitoring
requirements more in line with the requirements for CEMS,  we ask that
the valid hour definition be made consistent with 40 CFR Part
75.10(d)(1) .  This change would allow for calibration checks to be
conducted without losing complete hours.  (0026)

	Response:  See the response to Comment 115.

Section 8.1

	117.  Comment:  A reference is made to "PEMS training" but there is no
definition on what that means or is required.  If the term is going to
be retained it should be defined in Section 3.  (0026)

	Response:  We have added a definition for PEMS training to Section 3.0.

Section 8.2.1

	118.  Comment:  The procedure for selecting the operating conditions
for the RM tests is unclear and, in many cases, would be impracticable.
The section states that RM tests should be conducted at three operating
levels of the “key operating parameter that affects emissions” but
does not suggest how one might determine how to identify that “key”
parameter.  Also, what if the analysis suggests that the most critical
parameter affecting emissions is something like combustor discharge
pressure or exhaust temperature that cannot be readily altered?  I
recommend that this section be revised to read:

…use the test methods in Appendix A of this part for the RM test.
Conduct the RM tests at three operating levels. The RM tests shall be
performed at a “low” load (or production) level between the minimum
safe, stable load and 50 percent of the maximum load, at the
“normal” load level, and at a “high” load level between 80
percent and the maximum load.  Alternatively, if practicable, you may
test at three levels of the key operating parameter (selected based on a
covariance analysis between each parameter and the PEMS output) equally
spaced within the normal range of the parameter.  (0018)

	Response:  We have made the commenter’s recommended change to Section
8.2.1.  Mention of “normal” load has been revised to “mid” load.

	119.  Comment:  For clarification purposes, we recommend rewording the
RM test requirement to "For sources that have a normal operational range
of greater than 50 percent but less than 80 percent, conduct tests at
three load conditions within the normal operational range of the unit."
 (0026)

	Response:  We have added clarity by noting that the three test levels
should span the operating range of the key parameter that affects
emissions, if practical.

	120.  Comment:  This section contains a requirement to conduct the
tests at three “operating levels,” with the low level defined as
“minimum to 50 percent of maximum” and the high defined as 80
percent to maximum, which provides a very narrow window for the
mid-level.  We recommend that EPA look to the load range definitions
found at 40 CFR 75 for guidance when defining the operating levels for
PEMS testing, which provides more of a balance in the load ranges by
looking at the stable operating range for particular units.

	Response:  The high and low-level descriptions came from 40 CFR 75.
These operating levels relate to the operating parameter that most
affects emissions and may or may not be the load levels.  The chosen
operating parameter should be evaluated over their range of variations
as the unit is operated in s stable manner.  We have added clarified the
mid-level to be an intermediary level between the low and high levels.

Section 8.2.4

	121.  Comment:  This section appears to be written to only include the
location requirements of Method 1 which is somewhat problematic because
other applicable test methods, such as Method 20 for combustion
turbines, may allow other siting locations. Furthermore, the section
appears to not allow or provide for the use of other EPA accepted
monitoring methodologies such as the use of multi-holed probes.  To
provide flexibility, we ask that the section be reworded to allow the
use of other accepted monitoring methodologies including multi-hole
sampling probes and sampling locations other than those defined by
Method 1.  (0026)

	Response:  The reference method measurement locations in Section 8.2.4
were detailed assuming a 3-point traverse would be conducted without a
full Method 1 assessment.  Section 8.2.5 allows for the use of different
traverses to be used if they provide representative sampling.
Multi-hole sampling probes are now allowed in the instrumental test
methods that are used as the RM.

	122.  Comment:  There are 2 occurrences of 8.2.4 and 8.2.5.  The second
occurrences of 8.2.4 and 8.2.5 should be re-numbered as 8.2.7 and 8.2.8,
respectively.  (0026)

	Response:  The commenter is correct; this correction has been made.

Section 8.2.5

	123.  Comment:  As discussed in Section 8 .2 .4, we are requesting the
addition of multi-hole probes as an acceptable sampling method.  This
flexibility is consistent with 40 CFR 60.335(a)(4) for combustion
turbines that allows the use of multi-hole probes.

Additionally, EPA has specified a measurement time of two minutes plus
twice the response time for each traverse point.  This sample time
appears inconsistent with methods such as Method 20 which calls for a
sampling time of the system response time plus 1 minute.  (0026)

	Response:  Multi-hole probes are now allowed in Method 6C, 7E, 10, and
20 which are used as the RMs in PS-16.  The reference to a measurement
time of two minutes plus twice the response time per traverse points
only applies when showing that  single-point RM testing is acceptable.
The sample measurement times in the RMs should be followed for the RA
test.

Section 8.2.6

	124.  Comment:   Our experience with combustion sources, such as gas
turbines or process utility heaters, has been that emissions
measurements are relatively stable and valid readings are achieved after
three minutes (taking into account analyzer response time).  If a
multi-hole probe is used, the measurements do not start until readings
are stable.  After that point whether your run length is 5 minutes or 1
hour, the emission values remain the same.  It is presumed that 7
minutes is required to take into account sample response time.  We
recommend that EPA take a more flexible approach and require a minimum
of 5 minutes of sample time after the reading has stabilized.  (0026)

	Response:  The 7-minute sampling time per sampling point is a standard
procedure for RA testing of CEMS and is based on a 21-minute sample
collected at three traverse points rather than the sample response time.
 The response time must be taken into account before the sampling is
initiated.

	125.  Comment:  We request clarification of the term “fuel type.”
In many cases, boiler owners combust one or more opportunity fuels with
fossil fuels.  Is it EPA’s intention to require validation of the PEMS
under specific operating conditions?  If so, what procedures would have
to be followed in order to allow new fuel mixes into the operating
conditions?  (0022)

	Response:  Fuel type refers to different fuels a facility is allowed to
burn.  The effects of combusting each type of fuel on the predicted
emissions must be taken into account in the development of the model.
Only those fuels that have been evaluated as such or are known not to
affect the predicted values may be used during the PEMS operation.

Section 8.3.1

	126.  Comment:  The bias test requirement should be removed. Because of
the snapshot nature of the RATA, the bias test may suggest a
“statistically significant” bias when no meaningful bias exists due
to the small sample size.  Not only would any random RM error due to
drift likely exhibit itself as a bias (since the test period is short),
but the operating parameters are likely to remain relatively constant.
Thus, a PEMS might seem to indicate a bias at the time of the RATA, but
these results might not be typical of the fuller normal range of
operating conditions. In the very least, the bias test should be based
on the RATA data from all levels so that it reflects a broader variation
of operating parameters.  (0018)

	Response:  Any short-term performance test is only a snapshot of the
actual system performance.  The bias test as prescribed has worked well
under the Part 75 program and we do not think it should be changed here.

Section 8.3.3

	127.  Comment:  The correlation analysis should be removed since the
core of the requirement is already addressed by the three-load RATA
requirement. However, there is also a problem with the statement that
the correlation analysis may be waived “if the emission concentration
is less than 50 percent of the applicable standard.” This provision
should be struck since the problem with the correlation analysis, that
there will be no correlation if the emissions exhibit little variation,
is independent of the level of emissions. The statistics show no
deference

to the emission limits. Furthermore, why require petition to the
Administrator instead of just automatically waiving the correlation test
when the RM measured emissions vary by less than 30 percent?  (0018)

	Response:  See the response to Comment 37.

Sections 8.3.4

	128.  Comment:  Both Section 8.3.4 and 8.4 contain language instructing
the PEMS owner/operator to consult their reviewing or permitting
authority with jurisdiction over the emissions unit for additional
requirements.  We recommend EPA include all necessary statistical tests
in PS-16 and discourage efforts of state and local agencies to establish
their own, unique requirements for PEMS.  EPA stated in the Federal
Register notice:  “We are proposing PS-16 to provide regulatory
agencies a uniform procedure for assessing the capabilities of this new
monitoring tool.”  Leaving the current wording in Section 8.3.4 would
defeat the purpose of providing uniform performance criteria for PEMS.
If the EPA considers it necessary to acknowledge that states or local
authorities may choose to promulgate standards in addition to the
requirements of PS 16, the language in these sections could be modified
to read:  “Consult your state or local regulations for additional
requirements.”  (0010)

	Response:   We agree with the commenter and have deleted the statement
referring  the source to their reviewing or permitting authority for
additional requirements.

Section 12.3.1

eq \o(d,‾)  is greater than the confidence coefficient (cc)…”
Also, an equation showing how to compute the difference di could be
added for clarity.  (0021)

	Response:  To conserve space and minimize terminology, we did not
include equations for simple calculations such as the difference between
PEMS and RM values per run or comparing the absolute mean difference of
runs to the confidence coefficient to determine if a bias exists.

	130.  Comment:  The bias test should be removed.  In addition, as
written, the bias test is arbitrarily applied only to cases where the
PEMS is deemed to be statistically low in comparison to the RM.  If the
results of the bias test are considered meaningful, then a high bias is
just as statistically real as a low bias and should be likewise
corrected.  This could be accomplished by revising the section to read:

the arithmetic mean of the differences determined in Equation 16-1 based
on the data for all levels.  If the absolute value of the arithmetic
mean of the differences ( d ) is greater than the confidence coefficient
(cc), subsequent PEMS values shall be adjusted as in Equation 16-5:

 				Eq. 16-5

Where

 					Eq. 16-6a

(0018)

	Response:  Corrections for positive biases are not allowed in RA
testing.  Methods or monitoring tools that generate data that is biased
high are used at the discretion of the source.

Section 13.1

	131.  Comment:  The alternative RA criterion of 2 ppm for NSPS sources
should be raised.  For example, the alternative RA criterion for low
emission units is 15 ppm in Part 75.  The alternative 2 ppm is also
allowed in the proposal only if the emissions are below 10 percent of
the emission standard. This limitation should be removed since the
uncertainty associated RM measurements at low levels is independent of
the emission standard.  (0018)

	Response:  We believe the 15 ppm allowance is too lenient for sources
that have low emission limits.

Equation 16.2

	132.  Comment:  The first summation appearing in Equation 16.2 should
be for di2, not di.  The entire bracketed expression on the right-hand
side of the equation should be raised to the 0.5 power.  (0021, 0038)

	Response:  The commenter is correct, and the change has been made.

Equation 16-6a

	133.  Comment:  In Equation 16-6a, │ eq \o(d,‾) │ should be
replaced by just  eq \o(d,‾) .  Otherwise, the bias correction will
always be positive, which does not make sense.  (0021)

	Response:  The bias correction should always result in a higher PEMS
concentration.  Bias correction is only used for a low-biased PEMS, not
for high biased ones.

3.2  Comments on Correction of the Subpart J Coke Burn-off Equation

	134.  Comment:  The revised Part 60 subpart J coke burn equation in
60.106(3) at 70 FR 45614 does not agree with the equation that EPA has
previously published for Part 63 Subpart UUU.  There are differences in
algebraic signs on the terms and parentheses are in different places so
that the two equations cannot yield the same answer as was intended.  In
order to finally resolve this issue, We recommend that EPA adopt the
same coke burn equation for Subpart J that is provided in Subpart UUU
(Refinery MACT II) at 40 CFR section 63.1564(b)(40(i).  Using the coke
burn equation from Subpart UUU in Subpart J makes sense for several
reasons.  First, most refineries are subject to the requirements of both
Subpart J and Subpart UUU.  Second, the equation in Subpart UUU
cross-references Subpart J and is provided for use in determining the
coke burn-off rate of those units that elect to comply with Subpart J as
the method for meeting the emission limitations of Subpart UUU.  Third,
the equation is Subpart UUU results in the correct burn-off rate.
(0010, 0011, 0012, 0014)

	Response:  The coke burn equation in Subpart J was changed to match the
one in Subpart UUU of Part 63 in a recent separate rule amendment that
was finalized in the Spring of 2008.

3.3  Comments on Subpart BB (Kraft Pulp Mills) Amendment

	135. Comment:  We wish to support EPA’s proposed amendment which
would delete from the kraft pulp mill NSPS in §60.284 certain quality
assurance provisions of §60 Appendix F for continuous emission
monitors.  EPA states that it recognizes that those provisions were
added by mistake in an October 17, 2000, amendment.

Our member kraft pulp mills subject to the NSPS requirements report that
they sometimes have had difficulty convincing their state that the
provision was an error.  And, in a few cases, states have told mills
they were reluctant to correct their state requirements related to this
error until EPA publishes a correction deleting the requirement.  We
are, therefore, heartened by this amendment to correct EPA’s
inadvertent error.  (0017)

	Response:  This final correction was made in a separate rulemaking that
was published on September 21, 2006 (71 FR 55127).

	136.  Comment:   The non-controversial correction to Appendix F,
Procedure 1 is long overdue and should be made as soon as possible.  The
EPA should not tie this correction to taking final action on the PS-16
proposal and proposed corrections to PS-11; they are not related in any
manner.  (0021)

	Response:  See the response to Comment 135.

3.4  Comment on PS-2 Amendment

	137.  Comment:  We support EPA’s proposal to reinstate RATA relief
for low emitting sources; however, the relief is very specific and helps
only those sources with SO2 limits expressed in lb/MM BTU.  We suggest
EPA consider broadening the allowance for low emitting units to include
sources with NOx and/or SO2 limits expressed in other units, such as
ppm.  Recognizing that this type of relief can indeed be very helpful
for low emitting units, circumstances may exist when the measured value
is below the detection limit of the reference method.  These types of
scenarios may require newer, alternative approaches, such as dynamic
spiking, in order to properly assess the accuracy of the system.  (0009,
0010)

	Response:  This correction to PS-2 was made in a separate rulemaking
that was published on September 21, 2006 (71 FR 55127).  Your suggestion
to also add alternative units for low emitters is a good idea and we
would like to make such an amendment in a future rulemaking.

3.5  Comments on PS-11 Revisions

General

	138.  Comment:  We support the proposed changes to Performance
Specification (PS) 11 and the proposed changes to Part 60, Appendix F
Procedure 2.  (0009, 0019)

	Response:  No response is necessary.

	139.  Comment:  We support the proposed changes to PS-11.  (0009,
00010)

	Response:  No response necessary.

	140.  Comment:  The Federal Register Notice did not adequately explain
the purpose and impacts of the proposed amendments or how the proposed
amendments correct the problems associated with PS-11 and Procedure 2.
(0018)

	Response:  Because this action involved the correction of certain
errors found in PS-11 and Procedure 2 that do not affect the
requirements for testing nor alter the cost or other burdens of the
rule, and does not effect substantive changes to the rule itself, we did
not believe highly detailed explanations to be necessary.  Comments we
have received on the proposal tend to reinforce this view.  However, we
are providing further information in this response.

	Minor changes were made to Section 3.4 of PS-11, which defines the term
“Confidence Interval Half Range.”  The revised definition includes a
general reference to Section 12.3, which specifies the procedures for
calculating the confidence interval half range.  The revised definition
also clarifies that confidence interval half ranges must meet the
requirements specified in Section 13.2(2) of PS-11.

	In the second sentence of the introductory paragraph to Section 8.6,
the word “pairs” was changed to “sets” to avoid possible
confusion regarding the use of paired sampling trains.

	Several references to confidence interval half range in Section 12.3 of
PS-11 were revised to clarify that the confidence interval half range
pertains to the predicted PM concentration at the appropriate x value
specified for each correlation model.  These changes help to clarify how
confidence interval half ranges should be calculated and eliminate
potential confusion with other statistical parameters that can also be
characterized by confidence interval half ranges.  For the same reason,
similar changes were made to the references to tolerance interval half
range in Section 12.3 of PS-11.

 in Equation 11-12 was revised to clarify that the variable must be
calculated at the 95 percent confidence level for n-2 degrees of
freedom.  The confidence level and degrees of freedom had inadvertently
been omitted from the final rule.  The second term of Equation 11-22 was
corrected from “S2•S2" to “S2•S2•S2.”  In Equation 11-27,
the variable indicated under the radical sign has been corrected from
“Dmin” to “min.”  Finally, in the variable definitions
following Equation 11-31, the degrees of freedom for the variables un
and vdf have been corrected from "n-3" to "n-3."

0" to indicate that the parameter is based on the log-transformed y
values.  Two new equations (Equations 11-40 and 11-41) have been added
for determining upper and lower confidence limits, respectively.
Another equation (Equation 11-42) was added for transforming the
confidence limits back to the linear scale and determining confidence
interval half ranges.  Equations 11-43 and 11-44 have been added for
determining upper and lower tolerance limits, and Equation 11-45 has
been added for transforming the tolerance limits back to the linear
scale and determining tolerance interval half ranges.  Finally, we have
revised Section 12.3(5), which addresses power correlation models, to
incorporate the same changes that have been made to Section 12.3(4) in
the final amendments.  The revisions include renumbering Equation 11-42
as Equation 11-46 and renumbering Equation 11-43 as Equation 11-47 to
account for the new equations.

	In the final amendments, a note has been added following paragraph (v)
of Section 12.3(5) of PS-11.  The note concerns the application of
logarithmic, exponential, and power correlation models to calculate PM
concentrations using the response data from an operating PM CEMS.  These
models are undefined for PM CEMS response (x) values that are equal to
or less than zero.  The note also indicates that guidance materials will
be provided on how to address such situations.

	Because of the new equations added to Section 12.3(4) and the
renumbering of subsequent equations, Equation 11–44 becomes Equation
11-48 under the final amendments to PS-11.

	Several minor changes were made to Section 13.2 of PS-11 to clarify
that the acceptance criterion for confidence interval half range
percentages is that the percentages must be less than or equal to 10
percent.  Comparable changes were made to clarify that tolerance
interval half range percentages must be less than or equal to 25
percent.

	Two documents were added to the reference list presented in Section 16
of PS-11.  These two references provide the basis for the statistical
parameters listed in Table 1.  Table 1 also has been revised by
specifying a new set of values for one of the statistical parameters
(un’).  The values for un’ presented in Table 1 of the final rule
differed slightly from the values for that parameter found in standard
statistical reference books.  The values presented in the revised Table
1 are consistent with standard statistical references.  The revised
table also includes values for the parameter kT, which is used for
calculating tolerance interval half ranges.

	The final amendments include three revisions to Procedure 2.  In
Section 10.1, the reference to Section 16.5 has been clarified to
indicate that the referenced section is found in PS-11.  The other
changes concern the evaluation of absolute correlation audit (ACA) data.
 Section 10.4(3) of the final rule specifies that the average ACA value
must be within 10 percent of the average audit value or within 7.5
percent of the applicable standard.  Section 12.0 of the final rule
presents an equation (Equation 2-1) for determining if ACA values meet
the 10 percent criterion.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 However, that
equation cannot be used to determine if the ACA values meet the
±7.5 percent criterion.  To correct this problem, we have renumbered
Equation 2-1 as Equation 2-1a, and added a new equation (Equation 2-1b)
for determining if ACA data satisfy the 7.5 percent criterion.  We
have added references to these two equations to Section 10.4(3).  In
addition, we have clarified in Section 12.0(2) that Equation 2-1b must
be used when the reference standard value equals zero.  In such cases,
Equation 2-1a cannot be used because the denominator of the equation
equals zero, and the ACA accuracy value is undefined.

	Regarding the impacts of the proposed amendments to PS-11, the
amendments do not change the requirements for testing, the procedures or
frequency for conducting audits, or any other requirements of PS-11 that
are associated with costs or burden.  For that reason, there are no
impacts associated with the amendments, and we did not discuss impacts
in the Federal Register Notice for the proposed amendments.  However, we
will clarify in the preamble to the final amendments that there are no
impacts associated with the changes to PS-11 and Procedure 2.

	141.  Comment:  PS-11 and Procedure 2 are unlawful.  The Utility Air
Regulatory Group (UARG) has challenged the lawfulness of PS-11 and
Procedure 2 and the court case is currently being held in abeyance.  The
proposed amendments do not resolve the fundamental problems with PS-11
and Procedure 2 that prompted UARG to file suit.  (0018)

	Response:  PS-11 and Procedure 2 themselves are not the subject of this
action, except to the extent of technical corrections made to them.  The
corrections made in the proposed amendments were not intended to address
petitioners’ alleged defects in PS-11 and Procedure 2, but to correct
errors which EPA identified subsequent to their promulgation.  We note
that comments submitted by RMB Consulting & Research, attached to this
commenter’s letter, are largely supportive of the corrections and
clarifications adopted in this rule and suggest some additional
corrections and modifications, which we have carefully considered and
responded to elsewhere in this document.

	142.  Comment:  We question the legality of guidance materials for
PS-11 and Procedure 2.  The commenter remarked that guidance is not a
legal means of establishing legally binding requirements, resolving
significant issues with rules, or responding to comments raised during a
rulemaking.  (0018)

	Response:  We agree that guidance cannot establish legally binding
requirements.  We do not agree that guidance cannot legitimately address
significant technical or implementation matters, such as where rules
deliberately provide flexibility for case-specific applications.
Similarly, where public comments raise issues, guidance can often be
used to clarify further how specific applications can be fashioned to
respond to those issues or to further explain EPA’s interpretations of
rules to show that an issue may not in fact exist.  Because the
commenter did not provide details on any specific issues of concern, we
cannot address in this response the specific issues the commenter has
concerning the guidance developed for PS-11 and Procedure 2.

Sample Volume Audits

	143.  Comment:  Commenter OAR-2003-0074-0018 stated that the
requirement for sample volume audits (SVAs) specified in Section 10.3(3)
of Procedure 2 is inconsistent with the definition of SVA in Section 3.7
of PS-11.  The commenter explained that the term “sample volume
audit” is defined to apply only to extractive PM CEMS that measure the
mass of PM collected and the volume of the sample.  However, as
published, Section 10.2(3) could be interpreted to require SVAs for
extractive light scattering PM CEMS that do not measure sample volume.

	Response:  We agree with the commenter that SVAs should not be required
for extractive light-scattering PM CEMS that do not measure sample
volume.  In Section 10.3(3), the phrase “. . . applicable PM CEMS with
an extractive sampling system” is meant to refer to extractive systems
that measure sample volume.  However, we can understand that this phrase
could be misinterpreted to include extractive PM CEMS that do not
measure sample volume.  Therefore, we have revised Section 10.3(3) of
Procedure 2 to specify that SVAs are required “. . . for applicable PM
CEMS with an extractive sampling system that measure sample volume.”

	144.  Comment:  Commenter OAR-2003-0074-0018 indicated that the
denominator in Equation 2-4 of Procedure 2, Section 12.0(4), is
incorrect.  The commenter believes the variable in the denominator of
the equation should be the reference sample gas volume (VR) instead of
the full scale value (FS).  The commenter noted that replacing the
variable FS with VR in the denominator makes sense technically and is
consistent with the definition of SVA specified in PS-11.

̀Ĥ옍)

"̀Ĥ옍)

"̀Ĥ옍)

̀Ĥ옍)

(

B

a

‚

Ø

ñ

⠂連$ሂ桤ā㄀Ĥ摧巔y

$

&

'

(

@

A

B

f

i

©

ª

Ú

`

a

b

o

p

q

•

–

Ý

Þ

á

ù

ü

ý

Eñ

.

T

q

—

¯

ß

ý

̀Ĥ옍)

̀Ĥ옍)

Ȁ␱愁Ĥ摧㋎¬̀Ĥ옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

@

h¶

옍)

h¶

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

$

@

h¶

옍)

h¶

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

$

@

h¶

옍)

h¶

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

$

@

h¶

옍)

h¶

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

$

@

kd6

h¶

옍)

kd·

h¶

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

$

@

h¶

옍)

h¶

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

h¶

옍)

 hÕ

he

 hÕ

hv

h.

h¬/

hõ

 hœ

h

 hœ

hœ

hœ

 hœ

 hœ

hœ

¸

º

á

â

ã

>

A

Ö

×

hš

hÿ

×z×

_H

_H

h

hD

 hy

 hy

 hy

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

hD

 hÕ

ä

å

S

T

y

à

â

ã

æ

è

ë

ò

U

]

€

hÚ

hÚ

 hˆ\

hˆ\

hˆ\

 h

h

 h

h

hä

hä

h

huF

huF

huF

huF

huF

huF

huF

huF

huF

huF

h

huF

×

Ø

@

$

$

:  We agree with the commenter that the equation for determining SVA
accuracy should be the sample gas volume (VR) measured by the
independent calibrated reference device.  However, we have concluded
that Equation 2-4, as currently specified in Section 12.0(4) of
Procedure 2, should continue to be used for evaluating daily sample
volume check error.  The purpose of daily checks is to determine
instrument stability rather than accuracy.  Therefore, it is appropriate
to use the full scale value in the denominator of the equation when
evaluating daily sample volume checks.  We have retained Equation 2-4
for that purpose and have added a new Equation 2-5.  In addition, we
have revised the text of Section 12.0 (4) accordingly.  The revised
section reads as follows:

	“(4)  How do I evaluate calculate daily sample volume check error and
SVA accuracy?  You must use Equation 2-4 to calculate, in percent, the
daily sample volume check error.  To calculate SVA accuracy, in percent,
you must Equation 2-5.

  ADVANCE \u 12 	(Eq. 2-4)

  ADVANCE \u 12 	(Eq. 2-5)

Where:

VM	= 	Sample gas volume determined/reported by your PM CEMS (e.g.,
dscm),

VR	= 	Sample gas volume measured by the independent calibrated reference
device (e.g., dscm) for the SVA or the reference value for the daily
sample volume check, and

FS	= 	Full-scale value.”

Daily Drift Checks

	145.  Comment:  Commenter OAR-2003-0074-0018 stated that Equations 2-2
and 2-3 specified in Section 12.0(3) of Procedure 2 for determining
upscale and zero drift, respectively, are inconsistent with all other
equations published by EPA for measuring the drift of CEMS.  The
commenter explained that the variable in the denominator of the two
equations should be the span value instead of the upscale reference
standard value (RU).  The commenter cited Section 13.1 of PS-2 as an
example of a requirement to calculate CEMS drift in terms of span value.

	Response:  We acknowledge that other performance specifications require
evaluating drift in terms of the span value.  However, if we were to
require PM CEMS to be evaluated in terms of span value, we would have to
define span value in PS-11 and Procedure 2.  Because the various PM CEMS
technologies do not respond to PM concentrations in common units, it
would be difficult to define the span value in a way that would apply to
all PM CEMS.  Instead, when we developed PS-11 and Procedure 2, we
decided to require evaluating daily drift in terms of the upscale
reference value (RU).  In effect, the evaluation of daily drift, as
specified in PS-11 and Procedure 2, is performance-based rather than
technology-based and eliminates any problems associated with differences
in how PM CEMS technologies respond to emissions.  Although we
understand the commenter’s concern with maintaining consistency with
other performance specifications, we believe it is more appropriate to
evaluate PM CEMS drift in terms of the upscale reference value rather
than the span value.

 PAGE

 PAGE   iii

 PAGE   10