Section 20.51 Calculated Average Dry Emissions Concentration (Cgas): In cases where dilution sampling is employed for RM purposes, why would there be a need to report a dry gas concentration? This data element should note that it applies only when straight-extractive sampling is employed.
 Sections 20.52 Measurement Units of Cgas (Dry) and 20.53 Measurement Units of Cgas (Wet): For RM 6C and 3A, the measurement units should simply be stipulated (i.e., ppm for RM 6C and % by volume for RM 3A).
 Section 21.0 Data Elements for Method 30B: The intent of several of the data elements within this section is not clear, and the EPA has also provided no guidance in relation to the convention to be used for time rep01iing. For example, are the clock start time and clock end time supposed to reflect local time, Eastern Standard Time (EST), etc.? Also, this section does not differentiate between Reference Method 30B employed for Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) purposes or RM 30B employed for Low Emitting EGU (LEE) testing, and there are some unique considerations depending upon the context.
 Section 21.8 Process Parameter Run Data: The intent of this data element is not clear. If this field is to be used to collect load data for those tests used to demonstrate compliance with an output based emission standard, such guidance should be provided, as well as a direct reference to load (rather than the more generic reference to process parameter). Further, if the preceding is accurate, then EPA should clarify whether this field applies for those compliance tests associated with mass per unit heat input emission limits or QA tests.
 Section 21.9 Area of Stack: It is not clear if the "Area" being sought by the EPA is the area at the RM 30B sampling location or the area at the exhaust gas discharge point. The location for which the area is to be provided should be clarified.
 Sections 21.12 %02 and 21.13 %C02 : For RATAs using RM 30B, the comparison between the RM data and CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring system data is performed on a ug/scm basis (see 40 CFR 63, Subpart UUUUU, Appendix A, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.2). Therefore, for such RAT As, there is no need for a diluent gas value and these records should note that they only apply to LEE testing. Furthermore, per §63. l 0005(h)(3)(i), the EPA recognizes that a diluent gas value is only need is electing to show compliance with the MATS lb/TBtu limit, and only 0 2 or C02 is needed (not both). These additional nuances on the reporting of 0 2 and C02 data in the context of RM 30B must be captured. Lastly, no moisture basis is specified in regard to the reporting of the diluent concentration.
 Section 21.14 Stack Gas Volumetric Flow Rate (dry, standard conditions): There is no context for the reporting of this data. As described above for Items 21.12 and 21.13, this data is simply not needed when using RM 30 for RATA purposes. Furthermore, this data is only required for LEE testing purposes when demonstrating compliance with an output based emission limit. Lastly, §63.10005(h)(3)(i)(B) notes that the flow data can be comprised of data collected from a 40 CFR Part 75 certified flow monitoring system. As many such flow monitoring systems measure on a wet basis, the proposed Appendix E should allow reporting on either a scf or dscf basis, along with a field for unit of measure.
 Section 21.16 Associated Process Run Rate: The intent of this data element is not clear (if further is not clear how this information would differ from the Section 21. 8 Process Parameter Run Data).
 Sections 21.17 Start Minutes (cumulative); 21.18 End Minutes (Cumulative) and 21.19 Actual Clock Time: The intent of these fields is unclear. Run start and end times are already required in Items 21.6 and 21.7, there is no obvious meaning for "cumulative" start and end minutes, and no explanation of what is meant by Actual Clock Time.
Response 2: As mentioned earlier, the Agency disagrees that these data elements are unnecessary and that a PDF file submission is equivalent with electronic reporting. Please see Response 1 of Section 14.2.1.
The Agency appreciates the commenters' suggestions for clarification on specific data elements.
To assist with the clarification of the data elements, the data elements have been reorganized.  The original layout was by general information and methods.  The EPA has restructured the data elements into smaller groupings to assist with clarifying the data elements.  Those grouping are facility and testing information, test location information, isokinetic method run-level data element and point-level elements, Method 30B run-level data element and point-level elements, instrumental pre-test calibrations, Method 3A and 6C run-level data elements, Method 2 run-level data element and point-level elements, and Method 4 run-level data elements.  Our responses to those suggestions are shown by section number below. Where appropriate, the section in Appendix E of rule has been clarified as follows:
"17.14 State Facility ID - The state identification number as provided by a state air pollution control agency.  Many state and local agencies have an alphanumeric identifier for individual process operating units with an associated name describing the unit." This data element allows the delegated authority to link the source and the report to the state source identifier;
"17.25 Test Method  -  the test method directly associated with the parameter being reported."  These methods correspond to the methods in 63.10007 and Table 5.
Particulate Matter  -  Method 5 or 5D
Non-Hg HAP metals  -  Method 29
Hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride  -  Method 26, 26A, Method 320, or ASTM 6348-03
Mercury  -  Method 30B, ASTM D6784, or Method 29
Sulfur dioxide  -  Method 6C
According to §63.10007(e)(3) if data is being reported in the units of lb/MWH or lb/GWh, the emission data must be in lb/h  If an isokinetic method is not used, Method 2, 2A, 2C,  2F, or 2G may be needed to determine stack gas volumetric flow rate (scfh) and, in some cases, Method 4 or an approved alternative may be required for moisture content;
"17.23 Process Parameter  - Gross load, as the average electrical load during the performance test (megawatts or gigawatts), or heat input (mmBTU).   If gross load is chosen, this value is required to be recorded during the performance test and is needed for the calculation of the emission limits expressed in lb/MWh or lb/GWh.;
"17.20 Control Device Description  - a description of all emissions control devices used in-line with the process flow that is being tested." This is important information needed for future technology reviews and emission factor development.  According to CAA §112(d)(6), developments in practices, processes and control technology must be reviewed every 8 years.  Also, according to the general provisions at §63.7(g)(2)(iii), description of control devices is required in performance test reports;  This information is taken from the NEI.
"17.30 Action on process material (e.g., burned or generated)  -  For this subpart, the action could be steam or electricity generated or heat input (heat derived from combustion of fuel, coal or oil burned."  This information is needed to know which standard is relevant to the testing data;
"17.2 Subpart  -  subpart for which the emissions test is being conducted." A performance test can be conducted for multiple subparts. It is important to identify all of the EGU's the applicable regulations as required in the general provisions §63.7(g)(2)(ii). For instance, a MATS performance test report may also be utilized for an NSPS regulation (e.g., subpart Da) or for a state's PSD requirements. Moreover, testing for multiple subparts may be conducted at the same time, and the data for a specific subpart resides in one complete report;
"17.15 SCC  -  source characterization code for the EGU." Sources can have multiple SCCs for an EGU, depending on the type of fuel that is being utilized.  Also, the general provisions at §63.7(g)(2)(iii), require the appropriate SCC to appear in performance test reports. There are over 40 SCCs in the Electric Generation section. There is no SSCs for blends of fuel.  Select the most representative fuel type to determine which SCC is appropriate, These SCC are listed in the Reporting Instructions MATS Supplemental Stack Test Data.
"17.21 Project number  -  Unique identifier for the test report." EGU owners or operators who are required to comply with ASTM D7036, Section 6.10.3(c) are also required to provide a unique identifier of the test report. This data element refers to that unique identifier for the test report. Use of an unique identifier allows the XML schema and corresponding PDF files to be identified and grouped. Our state, local, and tribal partners have also requested unique project numbers for test reports. Reports with unique identifiers may be utilized to help delegated authorities sort quarterly reports for different EGUs at the same or at different sites. The project number can be referenced easily in communications to ensure the same report is being discussed. Unique identifiers are also important because stack testers can test multiple units in a day and have multiple reports submitted with the same date;
"17.34 Emission Concentration Units." The rule will clarify that this is the units of measurement that are needed for the calculation of the emissions. For instance, ppm and % are emission concentration units used for SO2 and O2; gr/dscf is a PM emission concentration unit;
17.35 Percent O2/CO2  -  Diluent Correction Percent is not required by MATS to be reported, and it will be removed from the rule;
"18.35 Units of Process Parameter - Megawatts/hour, gigawatts/hour, or million British Thermal Units/hour (mmBTU/hr)".  These units need to be stated so the delegated authority and the public know which compliance strategy is being followed.
"17.36 Quantity of Fuel Combusted  -  tons of coal, gallons of oil, tons of petroleum coke, or thousand cubic feet of synthetic gas combusted during the stack test." This data element is the value or measure of the process parameter that is applicable to the compliance strategy- normal operating load.  The quantity of fuel used must be capable of providing between 90 and 110% of the design load capacity but should be representative of site specific normal operations during each run.  This amount will be needed to complete the calculations in §63.10007(e)(3) for emission limits in terms of lb/MWh or lb/GWh;
"18.22 Type of Fuel Combusted  -  The type of fuel combusted during the test." Fuel type indicates what F-factor will need to be used if using that compliance strategy. Fuel type also needs to be identified for SCC selection and emission factor development;
 "18.2 Run Date  -  This is the date the test run is started." While the commenter suggested adding an end date added to each section where the Run date is listed, the rule remains unchanged as this addition is unneeded since each run has a clock start and end time;
Note that the Dry and Wet Basis F-Factors (Fd)  and  (Fw), of Sections 18.13 and 18.14 of Appendix E, respectively, can be used in EPA Method 4 if the equation in Section 16.4 of Method 4 is used. That value will be the volume of wet combustion components per unit of heat content at zero percent oxygen, dscf/10[6] BTU (scm/J).
"18.26 Percent Moisture  -  Actual  -  obtained from Method 4 or default value. Note that when the default value is provided, it must be identified as a default value." Where Methods 1-4 were used determine the flow rate, the actual moisture found from Method 4  needs to be reported.  If a default value is used for the emission calculation, it needs to be documented in the report that the actual moisture determined by Method 4 was not used and the default value was used;
"18.21 Manometer Used  -  the unique identifier associated with the manometer." The identification of the manometer used is needed to relate the QA calibration data to a specific manometer;
 "Clock Time Start  -  standard time (hour and minute) that a test run begins." and "Clock Time End  -  standard time (hour and minute) that a test run ends." The Agency notes that initially these data elements were to calculate the duration of the sampling run; however, in order to clarify and be consistent with the previous section, these section titles are changed in the rule to mirror section titles for 18.3 and 18.4.  Note that part §75.59 (5)(ii) (A) and (B) refer to the similar data elements - (A) involves the Date, hour and minute of beginning of test run while (B) involves the Date, hour and minute of end of test run. The Agency also notes that these data elements are  to be reported as the start and end times at the start of the test run in standard time, not accounting for daylight saving time;
"19.8  Process Parameter Run Data  -  heat input (mmBTU/hr) or the load average recorded during the test run." The value selected depends on the compliance strategy selected;
"19.17 Final Train Leak Check Vacuum  -  value from the final train leak check." This data element replaces "Pump Vacuum" from the rule. The Agency notes that pump vacuum values must be on the field data sheets for each sampling point in the PDF file to ensure the sampling trains pass the leak check at the maximum vacuum used to pull gas through the sampling train. Also note that this data element is needed as a QA check for a valid test run;
"19.18 Process Run ID  -  identifier for the process run number." This identifier is necessary so that an individual run can be linked to corresponding sampling test runs;
"19.19 Process Run Parameter ID - electrical load during the performance test (megawatts or gigawatts) or heat input (mmBTU)." The parameter selected is dependent on the selected compliance strategy;
"18.21 Nozzle Calibration  -  nozzle diameter in inches." This is the value obtained from the calibration sheets for the diameter of the nozzle, and it allows the area of the nozzle to be calculated for isokinetics;
"18.29 and 18.30, Initial and Final Volumes of Dry Gas Meter -  actual meter box reading recorded during the test run." The difference between the values represent the volume that will not exclude mid-run leak checks. Those meter readings at the leak checks will need to be recorded so that they can be subtracted from the difference. Note that the difference will exclude a post run leak check;
"19.7 Filter Temperature  -  sample gas temperature through the filter." This data element will be changed in the rule to remove "/Oven" to reflect the requirement of Section 8.5 of Method 5, Figure 5-3 of Method 5, and Table 5 of MATS. The Agency notes that the front half temperature include probe temperature and the sample gas temperature through the filter;
"23.31 and 23.33 Filter Train Leak Check Rate  -  leak rate of filter train." The rule will be changed from Filter/Oven Exhaust Temperature. The Final Train Leak Check Rate is needed as a QA check for a valid train test run;
"18.16 Cumulative Elapsed Sampling Time  -  Total sampling time per isokinetic run." The Agency notes that the cumulative elapsed sampling time was inadvertently omitted from the data elements of section 19 of Appendix E of the rule. As the cumulative elapsed sampling time differs from the period between the clock start and stop times, as that period includes port changes and possible leak checks that may take place between port changes, the rule now includes the cumulative elapsed sampling time data element. The Agency also notes that for isokinetic sampling, the difference between clock start and end times is generally longer than the duration of the sampling train collection and that the cumulative elapsed sampling time will be the total minutes that the sampling train collected sample only (so leak checks, port changes and sampling disruptions will not be included);The Agency agrees with the commenter, and the rule will remove section 20.1 Sampling Location, since this data element appears in Section 17 and does not need to be repeated;
As mentioned in sections 19.5 and 19..6 above, the titles for sections 20.11 and 20.13 will be changed in the rule to "Clock Time Start" and "Clock Time End," respectively. Consistent with sections 19.5 and 19.6, these data elements should be reported as the time at the start or the end of the test run in standard time, not accounting for daylight saving time. The Agency notes that section "25.6, 25.9, 25.12 Cylinder ID" is the cylinder ID that is on the gas certification sheet for the calibration gas cylinder;
The Agency agrees with the commenter that zero gas can be used as a low level gas, so the title of section 20.9 of the rule will be revised to "25.7 Calibration Low-Level (or Zero Gas Concentration), Mid, High);"
"25.3 Calibration Gas Cylinder Analyte  -  name of the compound in the cylinder." This information serves as a quality assurance check on the cylinder;
"26.35 Run Number of Process Parameter" - heat input (mmBTU/hr) or the load average recorded during the test run." The value selected depends on the compliance strategy selected;
The Agency notes that "20.18 Clock time" is redundant, as pointed out by a commenter. The rule will be revised to remove this data element;
"25.13 Calibration Span (High-Level) Gas Concentration  -  high concentration value on the gas certificate." The Agency agrees that a title change would offer clarification, so the rule has been revised. Note that according to Method 6C which references section 3.3.3 of Method 7E, the span concentration is equal to the High-level concentration;
The Agency agrees that section "20.20 Calibration Zero-level Concentration" is redundant; this data element will be removed from the rule;
"25.7 Calibration Low-level (or Zero) Gas Concentration  -  low or zero concentration value on the gas certificate." The Agency agrees that a title change would offer clarification, so the rule has been revised. Note that according to Method 6C which references Method 7E, the Low-level concentration may be the zero-level concentration;
The Agency agrees that section "20.22 Calibration High-level Concentration" is redundant; this data element will be removed from the rule.
The Agency agrees that section "20.23 Zero Gas Response" is redundant; this data element will be removed from the rule;
"25.164 Low-Level (or Zero) Gas Response in Direct Calibration Mode  -  measured concentration of the low (or zero) calibration gas when introduced in direct calibration mode." The Agency agrees a title change would offer clarification, so the rule has been revised. Note that according to Method 6C which references Section 12.1 of Method 7E,  the Low Gas Response is the measured concentration of the low (or zero) calibration gas when introduced in direct calibration mode (ppmv);
"25.19 Mid-Level Gas Response in Direct Calibration Mode - the measured concentration of the mid calibration gas when introduced in direct calibration mode (ppmv)." Note that according to Method 6C which references Section 12.1 of Method 7E, the Mid Gas Response is the measured concentration of the mid calibration gas when introduced in direct calibration mode (ppmv);
"25.22 Span (High-Level) Gas Response in Direct Calibration Mode - the measured concentration of the high (span) calibration gas when introduced in direct calibration mode (ppmv)." The Agency agrees a title change would offer clarification, so the rule has been revised. Note that according to Method 6C which references Section 12.1 of Method 7E, the High (Span) Gas Response is the measured concentration of the high (span) calibration gas when introduced in direct calibration mode (ppmv);
"20.27 System Low (or Zero) Response - the measured concentration of the low (or zero) calibration gas when introduced in system calibration mode (ppmv). The Agency agrees a title change would offer clarification, so the rule has been revised. Note that according to Method 6C which references section 12.1 of Method 7E, Cs, the System Low (or zero) Response is the measured concentration of the low (or zero) calibration gas when introduced in system calibration mode (ppmv);
"20.28 Span High Response - the measured concentration of the calibration gas when introduced in system calibration mode (ppmv)." The Agency agrees that a title change would offer clarification, so the rule has been revised. Note that according to Method 6C which references Section 12.1 of Method 7E, Cs, the System Upscale (Mid or High) Response is the measured concentration of the calibration gas when introduced in system calibration mode (ppmv);
"26.15 Pre-Run Low-Level (or zero) System Bias / System Response - the actual initial system calibration concentration of the low (or zero) calibration gas." The Agency notes that a title change would offer clarification, so the rule has been revised. Note that according to Method 6C which references Section 12.1 of Method 7E, COA, the Pre-test Low (or zero) System Response is the actual initial system calibration concentration of the low (or zero) calibration gas;
"26.18 Pre-Run Upscale (mid or span-high)System Bias / System Response - the actual initial system calibration concentration of the upscale (mid or high) calibration gas." The Agency notes that a title change would offer clarification, so the rule has been revised. Note that according to Method 6C which references Section 12.1 of Method 7E, CMA, the Pre-test Bias /System Response is the actual initial system calibration concentration of the upscale (mid or high) calibration gas;
"26.21 Post-Run Low-Level (or zero) System Bias / System Response - the actual final system calibration concentration of the low (or zero) calibration gas." The Agency notes that a title change would offer clarification, so the rule has been revised. Note that according to Method 6C which references Section 12.1 of Method 7E, COA, the Post-test Low (or zero) Bias / System Response is the actual final system calibration concentration of the low (or zero) calibration gas;
"26.26 Post-Run Upscale (mid or span-high) System Bias / System Response - the actual final system calibration concentration of the upscale (mid or high) calibration gas." The Agency notes that a title change would offer clarification, so the rule has been revised. Note that according to Method 6C which references Section 12.1 of Method 7E, CMA, the Post-test Bias /System Response is the actual final system calibration concentration of the upscale (mid or high) calibration gas;
"26.30 Unadjusted Raw Emissions Average Concentration  - the average of the unadjusted gas concentration indicated by data recorder for the test run.";
"26.31 Unadjusted Raw Emission Units of Measure (dry)  -  the units used to measure the unadjusted gas concentration which must indicate if the sampling was on a wet basis or a dry basis (for instance: ppmvd, ppmvw, %vd, %vw).";
The Agency agrees that "20.34 Zero Gas Percent Error" is redundant and will be removed from the rule;
"25.17 Low-Level (or zero) Calibration Error  -  the initial low (or zero) gas analyzer calibration error calculation (Eq. 7E-1)." Note that his value needs to be within 2% of the calibration span or less than or equal to 0.5 ppm absolute difference, according to section 13.1 of Method 7E;
"25.20 Mid-Level Calibration Error  -  the initial mid gas analyzer calibration error calculation (Eq. 7E-1)." Note that this value needs to be within 2% of the calibration span or less than or equal to 0.5 ppm absolute difference, according to section 13.1 of Method7E ;
"25.23 Span (High-Level) Calibration Error  -  the initial span (high) gas analyzer calibration error calculation (Eq. 7E-1)." Note that this value needs to be within 2% of the calibration span or less than or equal to 0.5 ppm absolute difference, according to section 13.1 of Method 7E;The Agency agrees that "20.41 System Zero Level Calibration Error" and "20.42 System High Level Calibration Error" are redundant and will be removed from the rule;
"20.38 Pre-run Low (or Zero) System Bias - the calculated Pre-test Low (or zero) System Bias in percent of the calibration span." Note that this data element is from Method 6C which references SBi from Eq 7E-3 of Method 7E;
The Agency agrees that "20.44 Pre-run Zero Drift" is not necessary and will be removed from the rule;
"20.45 Pre-run Upscale (mid or high) System Bias - the calculated Pre-test upscale (mid or high) System Bias is in percent of the calibration span." Note that this data element is from Method 6C which references SBi from Eq 7E-3 of Method 7E;
The Agency agrees that "20.46 Pre-run Zero Drift" is not necessary and will be removed from the rule;
"26.21 Post-Run Low (or Zero) System Bias - the calculated Post-test Low (or zero) System Bias is in percent of the calibration span." Note that this data element is from Method 6C which references SBfinal from Eq 7E-3 of Method 7E;
"26.23 Post-Run Low-Level (or zero) Drift - drift assessment in percent of the calibration span." Note that according to Method 6C, which references Eq 7E-4 D of Method 7E, the calculated Post-test Low (or zero) must be less than 3% or the bias responses must not differ more than 0.5 ppmv per section 13.3 of Method 7E ;
"20.49 Post-run Upscale (mid or high) System Bias - the calculated Post-test Upscale System Bias in percent of the calibration span." Note that this data element is from Method 6C which references SBfinal from Eq 7E-3 of Method 7E;
"26.25 Post-Run Upscale (mid or span-high)Drift - drift assessment in percent of the calibration span."  Note that according to Method 6C, which references Eq 7E-4 D of Method 7E, the calculated Post-test Low (or zero) must be less than 3% or the bias responses must not differ more than 0.5 ppmv per section 13.3 of Method 7E;
"26.32 Calculated Average Dry Concentration, Adjusted for Bias (Cgas)  -  average effluent gas concentration adjusted for the bias, ppmv.";
"26.33 Concentration Units of Measure (Dry) - ppmvd or %vd.";
"20.53 Measurement Units of Cgas (Wet) - ppmvw or %vw.";
The Agency agrees that "21.1 Sampling Location" is redundant and will be removed from the rule;
As mentioned in sections 19.5 and 19..6 above, the titles for sections 23.9 and 23.11 will be changed in the rule to "Run Start Time (Clock Time Start)" and "Run End time (Clock Time End)," respectively. Consistent with sections 19.5 and 19.6, these data elements should be reported as the time at the start or the end of the test run in standard time, not accounting for daylight saving time;
As mentioned in  sections 19.8 and 20.16, section 23.45's description is "23.45 Run Number of Process Data  -  heat input (mmBTU/hr) or the load average recorded during the test run." Note that the unit selected depends on the EGU's compliance strategy;
The Agency agrees that "21.9 Area of Stack" is redundant and will be removed from the rule;
With regard to the explanation for "23.43 Percent O2," As stated in 1.0 of Appendix E, you must record the electronic data elements in this appendix that apply to your compliance strategy under this subpart.  If %O2 is needed to calculate your emissions and is applicable to your compliance strategy, then you need to report it when conducting Method 30B;
With regard to the explanation for "23.44 Percent CO2,"As stated in 1.0 of Appendix E, you must record the electronic data elements in this appendix that apply to your compliance strategy under this subpart.  If %CO2 is needed to calculate your emissions and is applicable to your compliance strategy, then you need to report it, when conducting Method 30B;
With regard to the use of certified flow monitoring systems for "21.14 Stack Gas Volumetric Flow Rate (dry, standard conditions), please see the detailed discussion in Response 1 in Section 14.2;
"23.45 Run Number of Process Data  -  unique identifier for a process run." Note that this data element replaces the redundant Associate Process Run Rate title;
The Agency agrees "21.17 Start Minutes (cumulative)" is not necessary and will be removed from the rule;
"23.15 Cumulative Elapsed Sampling Time (A);"

The Agency agrees that "21.19 Actual Clock Time" is redundant and will be removed from the rule; and

The Agency notes that "21.21 Pre-Leak Check Vacuum (in. Hg)" is a QA element required by section 8.3.1 of Method 30B. This pre-test leak check must be conducted to about 15 inches of Hg, and the value needs to be recorded to confirm that the appropriate vacuum was pulled..

14.2.2 XML
Comment 1: Commenter 20597 said even if XML stack test data are reported for performance tests, the files should not be required for MATS CEMS performance evaluation tests. All the information needed to document the QA of the CEMS will be reported in the "Quality Assurance and Certification" XML data files, which sources must submit via ECMPS. The QA files currently include tests such as the RATA results for mercury CEMS and HCl CEMS, and, under the proposal would include PS-11 correlation tests, RCAs, and RRA for PM CEMS. These files already document significant run level detail in XML format along with information such as start/end times, CEMS concentrations, reference method concentrations, and unit load a long with detail s on the test results such as the mean difference, standard deviation, confidence coefficient, and relative accuracy values. The Agency has successfully used these types of QA records to document CEMS quality assurance test data for over two decades under 40 CFR Part 75 for the ARP and NOx Budget/CSAPR Programs. These records have been sufficient and remain sufficient for that task. Similarly, the RATA records (and the analogous QA records proposed for PM CEMS) are adequate for the purpose of documenting the quality assurance of CEMS used for the MATS Rule. In the case of the SO2 CEMS, the same exact equipment that is used for Part 75 monitoring is used for MATS with no additional QA/QC requirements. So, why would there be the need for additional reporting? Likewise, when the Agency finalized very similar mercury monitoring requirements for compliance under the Clean Air Mercury Rule (before the courts vacated the rule for reasons completely unrelated to either the monitoring or reporting requirements), nearly identical QA records were deemed sufficient under that rule. There is simply no reason that the additional XML reporting proposed in Sections 14 through 22 of Appendix E would now need to be required for RATAs, PS-11 correlation test, RCA or RRAs. Removing the requirement for the CEMS QA related stack test data will resolve the duplicative reporting.
Commenter 20610 stated they've operated a coal-fired power plant for many years. During EPA's interim reporting period they filed electronic PDF files in accordance with the interim requirements. These interim reporting requirements methods seemed adequate to provide EPA with means to verify a source's adherence to EPA's procedures. EPA now proposes, in the name of necessity for EPA to assure compliance, that the source incorporate raw data taken from performance test reports and other evaluations into the electronic data report. For many decades now, vendors have been successful in employing EPA-approved methods and calculations to sources and providing competent and timely emission evaluation reports to the source for subsequent transfer to regulatory agencies as a means of assuring compliance. In recent years, EPA, has developed qualified vendors to further assure conformance with their methods. EPA is always presented with such reports to confirm the accuracy of presented results. Sources, consultants, and state agencies monitor and verify that vendors follow the procedures now. EPA would now have sources transfer the raw data received from test vendors into XML format so it can duplicate the entirety of the test report to assure that the source has faithfully conducted an evaluation in accordance with EPA methods. The commenter disagreed that EPA will perform the computations into the future any more frequently than it has in the past. If EPA has questions or concerns about certain test results presented in a report it has the option to compel a source to test again, or it may conduct the test. Unless we misunderstand the proposal, much of it seems wholly unnecessary and an extra burden from which no substantive errors will be determined and for which no environmental benefit will be gained. The commenter requested that EPA either withdraw the proposal or receive the helpful suggestions offered by vendors, software engineers, and source operators in such a way as to reduce to the minimum the changes necessary to demonstrate that compliance is achieved by the sources. The commenter said this is nearly adequately done now. Regardless, it is important that EPA provide enough time to incorporate the software changes that are necessary to fully implement the final revisions to MATS reporting requirements. The commenter disagreed this can be concluded by January 1, 2017. The implementation date needs to be consistent with the magnitude of changes ultimately required by EPA, so while the commenter suggested the new reporting for data collected be eight quarters following the date when the final rule is published, a lessening of the burden now proposed by EPA might make a somewhat earlier date more possible.
Commenter 20606 stated the original MATS rule reporting requirements for performance tests are different than what is required for CEMS performance evaluations. The results of a performance tests shall include the analysis of samples, determination of emissions, and raw data. While raw data is not necessarily required as part of the performance evaluation results, some raw data is required for performance test results. But, even for the performance tests, the required reported results would not represent a complete, detailed stack test report since §63.7(g)(3) states that the performance test recordkeeping requirements include "the records or results of such performance test and other data needed to determine emissions from an affected source." §63.10007(g) likewise indicates that "such records as may be necessary to determine whether the performance tests have been done according to the requirements" shall be made available "upon request." This implies that the "results" which are required to be reported do not necessarily include all the data needed to determine the emissions. The commenter said it is important for EPA to recognize that MATS sources were never required to report all the data within the ERT, decide how best to report the data and what data needs to be reported, what portion of that data is critically required in a numeric XML format, and what data is adequately or better addressed within a detailed stack test report that can be submitted electronically in a PDF (or equivalent) file. Since the ERT is no longer used for reporting under the proposed MATS revisions, all the references to the ERT need to be removed. If the references to the ERT are not removed it would be confusing and result in duplicate reporting.
Response 1: The Agency finds the commenter's suggestion that raw data will not be calculated more frequently mistaken. One aspect of electronic reporting is that every emissions test will have all of the underlying calculations performed; as has been mentioned earlier, this automatic calculation is one reason that PDF file submissions, which provide data that must be reentered, are unsuitable. While the Agency has worked to accept as much data from other programs, such as the acid rain program, differences between program objectives and statutes preclude data incorporation from other programs into MATS. With respect to comments concerning use of third party programs to assist EGU owners or operators with their submission requirements, the Agency continues to support such efforts by developing an XML schema that can be used by anyone to supply the necessary data, even though use of the ERT already ensures that the performance testing data can be submitted appropriately.

As mentioned earlier, the Agency maintains that the ERT is a tool that could be used to develop a complete test report and XML. It already identifies the data required to be reported in the recently-promulgated general provisions updates to parts 60 and 63; however, while the ERT remains available for use, its use is not mandatory. As discussed in the preamble, the XML file to be submitted electronically can be generated to meet the reference method data submission requirements either via the existing ERT or via another program that provides the data in an appropriate XML file format.

Also as mentioned before, the Agency maintains that complete emissions testing information was and is required to be submitted via MATS. The Agency relies on the data elements listed to determine the emissions, verify compliance and develop emission factors. Moreover, in order to provide enough information to the delegated authority to determine if the results submitted pass the quality assurance provisions of the reference method and are valid emissions data, the raw data are needed, just as the raw data are needed by the acid rain program (see §75.21(f) and Appendix A 3.1.2(a) of part 75).
Comment 2: Commenter 20612 disagreed with references to use of ERT for any purpose in MATS and indicates that they instead support EPA proposal to specifically define the data elements that are to be reported for MATS in an XML format for performance tests. They support reporting in terms of an actual format making reporting more easily automated and integrated using the tools sources and testers already have in place.
Commenter 20609 indicated that EPA has proposed language limiting the obligation to submit the detailed data elements for reference method information in Appendix E sections 17-22 to "performance stack tests" conducted using a method (or methods) supported by the ERT. This commenter said the purpose and implications of ETS's applicability is not clear and the commenter objects to it. EPA suggests that the purpose is to ensure that EGUs have the option of using the ERT to generate the require XML files. The commenter said that EGUs that want to use the ERT to generate reports can do that without MATS rule language authorizing that.
Commenter 20607 urged EPA to clarify that companies are not required to use the ERT to generate XML files. Instead, companies should have the option to use their own data acquisition systems to collect data for transmission to EPA. This will reduce the administrative burden of MATS reporting by allowing companies to continue using software they already have in place. It also allows companies the flexibility to determine the best and most efficient system of data collection for them.
Commenter 20597 opposed the suggestion that the ERT should be used to generate stack test data XML files. The idea of using the ERT and CEDRI is not preferable in any way. The commenter said going back to using ERT and CEDRI was inconsistent with the current objective. After engaging in a single data system initiative designed to replace the original patchwork of MATS reporting requirements, the commenter disagreed that EPA would suggest that continuing to use the ERT and CEDRI in addition to ECMPS. The commenter supported electronic reporting, but said the ERT is a poor tool for reporting emissions test data. The commenter appreciated that EPA has now proposed to specifically define the data elements that are to be reported for MATS in an XML format for performance tests. Sources and emission testers already have spreadsheets and software tools that they have personally verified over time. Defining the reporting in terms of an actual format allow the reporting to be easily automated and integrated using the tools sources already in place. The commenter said that reimposing the ERT and CEDRI would void these benefits and make the reporting more, not less burdensome. To streamline and automate the emission reporting, the commenter requested clearly defined reporting format rather than being required to create the data using a specific reporting tool. Ignoring the many issues with the ERT and the fact that developing an alternative to the original ERT and CEDRI reporting was a fundamental objective of the revisions to the MATS electronic reporting requirements, the ERT cannot actually produce an XML file that provides the proposed stack test data required in Appendix E.
Commenter 20595 stated the agency is recommended to remove the suggestion that the ERT should be used to generate stack test data XML files. The proposal removes all requirements to report data using the ERT and CEDRI. However, the preamble suggests that "the existing ERT can produce a single XML file that includes all of the detailed reference method information necessary for the stack test and QA test reports" under Appendix E of the proposed rule and solicits comments "on whether submitting the detailed reference method data to ECMPS will actually reduce the reporting burden on EGU owners or operators, or whether submitting the data (produced using the ERT) directly to CEDRI would be preferable." The suggestion of going back to using ERT and CEDRI is completely inconsistent with the current objective. After engaging in a "single data system initiative" designed to replace the original patchwork of MATS reporting requirements, the commenter questioned why the Agency now suggests that continuing to use the ERT and CEDRI in addition to ECMPS (the situation that existed before starting the initiative) would somehow be preferable. The ERT is a cumbersome tool that EPA needs to abandon. It does not make sense to continue to report some data using CEDRI in comparison to submitting all the data through ECMPS.
Response 2: The Agency appreciates the commenters who support using an XML format for reporting of the data for performance test reports. As mentioned earlier, the preamble identifies two ways that an XML file can be generated to meet the rule's data submission requirements: either via the existing ERT or via another program that provides the data in an appropriate XML file format. The Agency notes that while the ERT creates an acceptable XML file, its use is optional, not mandatory. The ERT is a convenient, helpful piece of software in use when electronic reporting is required by other NESHAP and NSPS; the Agency would be remiss to not include its availability for public use. Many emission testing companies have embraced the ERT, linking their proprietary spreadsheets easily to tool templates. That ability makes importing the isokinetic and other data simple since those data have already been placed in a spreadsheet. The Agency's the ERT is not cumbersome, nor will it be abandoned, nor will references to the ERT be removed from the rule; like many other software programs, once one becomes familiar with its operation, one finds it invaluable.
Comment 3: Commenter 20609 indicated that EPA should remove the Appendix E "percent O2/CO2 correction" in section 17.35 because there are no MATS standards to which that applies. At a minimum, EPA should clarify that data elements are only required if they are required for the particular EGU to demonstrate compliance. For example, some proposed data elements, like F-Factors, flow rates, and stack diameters, would only apply if the EGU was demonstrating compliance with a particular type of standard  -  i.e., input-based or output-based. The commenter suggested EPA could avoid all of these issues by simply requiring submission in PDF format of the test report that would contain all of the information required to be recorded to support an applicable test method run.
Response 3: The Agency thanks the commenter for his suggestions for rule changes.  The Agency agrees that percent O2/CO2 correction is not an item that needs to be reported, and it will be removed from the rule's required data element list.
As mentioned in section 1.0 of Appendix E, the reportable electronic data elements are determined by the chosen compliance strategy; therefore the Agency believes no additional clarification on this topic is necessary. Note that some data elements may or may not be necessary to demonstrate compliance depending on this strategy. Also, that that if a data element is listed in the general provisions at §63.8(g), in the test method, in this subpart, or is required by the delegated authority, and is needed to determine compliance, then the applicable data element needs to be reported.
Also, as already discussed earlier, PDF file submissions do not constitute electronic reporting.
Comment 4: Commenter 20609 disagreed with EPA's assertion that the proposal will have "no significant impact on stakeholders." The commenter said that EGUs will have to spend significant resources developing new procedures and software to record in their DAHS significant amounts of previously unreported data so that they now can be reported in XML format.
Commenter 20608 stated that EPA inaccurately stated the proposed MATS data elements that would be reported electronically for performance tests and CEMS performance evaluations remain unchanged. The original requirement to submit data using the ERT is not synonymous with a requirement to provide all the data within the forms of the ERT as EPA seems to be suggesting. It only means that a source would have report the applicable required performance test data in the format that the ERT generates. MATS sources were never required to report all the data within the ERT. Rather than just assume that it has to replicate some assemblage of ERT within Appendix E (or any new XML reporting format for stack test data), the Agency should be reflecting on how best to report the data: what data needs to be reported, what portion of that data is critically required in a numeric XML format, and what data is adequately or better addressed within a detailed stack test report that can be submitted electronically in a PDF (or equivalent) file. Careful consideration will benefit both sources and streamline eventual reporting.
Commenter 20606 stated EPA's proposal will introduce significant additional burden in regard to the MATS reporting obligations, but will not result in any meaningful reduction in the level of effort associated with the electronic data elements that must be reported to EPA. This includes the electronic data elements associated with stack tests and QA test reports. Initial industry suppliers for using ECMPS as a single electronic reporting tool was largely driven by a desire to avoid using the EPA's ERT. The desire was that all required MATS electronic data entry would be handled through existing DAHS or ECMPS. However, the EPA's current proposal essentially continues to require the use of ERT or some alternate data entry scheme employed within the DAHS (assuming the DAHS vendors commit to building such functionality) of the same complexity as that found within ERT. The commenter noted additional language in the preamble suggests that the burden associated with reporting all of the electronic data elements for stack tests and QA test reports will not help EGU owners/operators to quickly identify errors which could impact the quality assured status of the associated data. EPA recognizes that errors in QA test submittals could impact the validity of the CEMS data, they failed to recognize that any electronic checks on the QA test data should be an inherent capability within ECMPS. In regard to existing 40 CFR Part 75 or Hg CEMS QA test data submitted via XML format via ECMPS, any standard electronic evaluations regarding data validity can be performed at any time after the data is imported into ECMPS, and at the latest, is performed at the time of data submittal via ECMPS. The preceding allows an EGU owner/operator to identify errors in QA test data as quickly as possible and minimize the potential loss of CEMS data in the event that an error is found within the QA test data. In contrast to this historic approach for evaluation of QA test data reported in XML format, EPA now proposes to conduct electronic checks on the data external from ECMPS. From an EGU perspective, all of the effort associated with electronic submittal of stack test and QA test data elements would be no different than submitting a hard copy or PDF version of the QA test data. Under this proposal, the EGU has no ability to directly perform the electronic checks that may be performed by EPA, will be unaware of what specific checks are being performed by EPA, and will have no assurance of a date certain by which EPA will complete their evaluation of the stack test and/or QA test electronic data. Any data evaluation process should be developed in a manner that can easily be recreated by all parties; the commenter said this proposal fails to meet that standard.
Commenter 20597 said the proposed revisions contain a large amount of duplicative reporting that is unnecessary. This is the case with respect to RATA, PS-11, RCA and RRA test, which the proposed rule would require some of the data be reported to both the QA file as well as the new XML stack test data file. Monitor availability values are also required in the quarterly compliance report even though values are reported hourly in the emissions file. These duplicative reporting requirements should be removed. Since EPA will be collecting all this information via ECMPS, the data does not need to be reported in more than one file as the Agency may use ECMPS to populate whatever databases they may use this information. The requirement in Appendix E for sources to report the fuel usage during performance tests, RATAs, PM CEMS correlation tests, RRAs, and RCAs should be removed. Gross load and/ or heat input, which is already reported on an hourly basis, would serve as much more meaningful process indicators. The supplemental XML stack test data reporting requirements in Sections 14-21 of Appendix E are unnecessary and should be removed. The proposed quarterly compliance reports contain all information needed to assess compliance and in sure that the performance tests were performed properly. The data compliance report can be combined with the heat in put or load information already reported by sources in the quarterly emissions files to develop emission factors. For the Agency to truly evaluate the reported values a review of the detailed test report would be required. MPC would suggest this information be submitted in a PDF formant upon request.
Response 4: The Agency disagrees with the commenters' assertions. As mentioned earlier, the Agency finds the result of implementation of this rule yields a burden reduction, as opposed to a significant impact  -  see Response 1 to Section 1.4. Also as mentioned earlier, MATS required use of the ERT for those emissions tests included in the ERT. As all MATS emissions tests are included in the ERT, all emissions tests were to have been reported using the ERT. Now that an XML schema which identifies the information already included in the ERT has been developed at industry's request, data from this XML schema can suffice for the electronic submission requirement  -  but so can data collected via the ERT. As part of the XML schema development, the Agency thoroughly reviewed the ERT, clarified it, and in some cases, pared it back. The data identified in Appendix E and contained in the XML schema was given careful consideration, and, as mentioned elsewhere, is necessary for emissions determination, calculation replications, compliance verification, and emission factor development  -  see Response 1 to section 14.2.2.
While a commenter may claim to find not much difference between file submission via PDF or the ECMPS Client Tool, the Agency suggests expanding such a myopic view. Submitted data serve many purposes, including many that are beyond the scope of an individual EGU owner or operator. In addition, as mentioned earlier, PDF file submissions, by themselves, do not constitute electronic reporting. The rule allows a careful balance of data submission via the ECMPS Client Tool and, in cases where data are not suited for electronic reporting, e.g., EGU CEMS installation schematics, via PDF files. Those limited instances in which PDF file submissions supplement the XML schema and are acceptable can be found in section 30 of Appendix E of the rule. Finally, to the extent duplicative reporting requirements exist  -  and the Agency does not believe such requirements exist  -  having data identifiable via XML tags would simplify data collection and submission, thus reducing reporting burden.
14.3 Reference methods in sections 14-16

Comment 1: Commenter 20609 stated EGUs currently report RATA results for Hg CMS in XML format and RATA, RRA, and RCA test data in PDF format. The commenter said this information is sufficient to ensure that tests were performed correctly. For all tests involving the use of reference methods, EPA's proposal expands the required information to include detailed information on the testing company, source physical characteristics, individual traverse sample point data, and other elements specific to various test methods. Proposed App. E sections 14.2-3, 15.2-3, 17.0-21.0. The commenter objected to these additional requirements. Providing this information, much of which will have to be entered by hand, imposes significant burdens with little benefit. As with the new information that EPA proposes be reported under Appendix B, the likelihood of transcription errors is high, thus increasing the possibility that EPA may have to spend time investigating reported information to determine the source of the error (whether in transcription or in the test itself). The commenter said EPA has not provided any rationale for requiring this information other than to assert that it already is being submitted by sources only in a different format. The commenter said it assumed EPA's statement is based on the information currently requested when creating a report using the ERT. However, the content of the ERT is not a rule requirement. The content of reports is dictated by the applicable rules and methods, and EPA has previously confirmed that when the ERT requests information not required by the rules to be submitted, sources are free to ignore that request. See EPA Response to Comments on the Industrial Boiler MACT Reconsideration at 670 (Dec. 2012), EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0058-3846. EPA must submit a new ICR for these proposed new reporting requirements. 40 C.F.R § 1320.3 (definition of "collection of information").
Response 1: As mentioned earlier, the Agency is surprised that the commenter objects to the efforts to better align the RATA requirements for CMS to the industry-requested ECMPS Client Tool. Also as mentioned earlier, the data sought by the rule is necessary for compliance determination, as well as for other activities, including calculation checks and emissions factor development. Even with the increased submission frequency of some reports  -  also necessary to better match the requirements of the ECMPS Client Tool - the Agency finds collection and submission of these data to be a burden reducer, not increaser. While the Agency agrees that the ERT need not be used when it does not include a specific test method and that clearly-identified optional information need not be reported, an EGU owner or operator remains able to use the ERT as the basis for submitting emissions testing information; of course, the EGU owner or operator is also able to use the XML schema for emissions testing and other reporting requirements.
Comment 2: Commenter 20609 said in proposed Appendix E section 16, EPA discusses the need for information from various test methods when conducting performance stack tests, RATAs, RRAs and RCA. This discussion appears to respond to a request by UARG to clarify the rule with respect to the need for collection of data using a separate reference method when the equivalent data are generated by a reference method that already is being conducted. The commenter appreciated and supported this discussion, but requested further minor clarification in the final rule.
Specifically, in the 2011 MATS proposal, EPA proposed to require use of Method 2, 2F, or 2G to determine velocity and the flow rate of the stack gas in conjunction with performance testing for PM, non-Hg HAP metals, HCl, HF, and Hg, and for LEE testing using Method 30B. Proposed Table 5, 76 Fed. Reg. at 25,129-31. In comments, UARG pointed out that in many cases independent use of those methods is not necessary, because most of the methods specified in Table 5 to determine pollutant concentrations (e.g., Methods 5, 26A and 29) also provide measurements of stack gas velocity and subsequent computation of volumetric flow. UARG Comments on 2011 Proposed MATS Rule at 194-95 (Aug. 4, 2011), EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-17775. In its response to comments, EPA stated that the rule had been amended to clarify that "the requirement of Method 2 (or equivalent) [is] only as necessitated by the calculation of the emission limit." EPA Response to Comments, Vol. 2 at 5-6 (Dec. 2011), EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20126. However, Table 5 did not itself reflect that clarification. As a result, it was not clear where EPA actually addressed UARG's concern.
In comments on the Technical Corrections Rule, UARG again requested that EPA revise Table 5 to clarify that independent application of Method 2 (or an equivalent method) is not mandatory. UARG similarly requested clarification that Method 4 does not need to be performed independently from, or in addition to, Methods 5, 26A or 29 to obtain moisture values. UARG Technical Corrections Comments at 100-101. EPA did not respond to those comments because they were outside the scope of the proposal. 2016 RTC at 124-26.
The commenter appreciated that EPA now is addressing this concern in this proposal. Specifically, in proposed section 16.1, EPA explains that for output-based standards stack gas flow rate is needed during each run of Methods 5, 5D, 26, 26A and 30B in order to convert concentration to units of the standard, but notes that methods that require isokinetic sampling  -  like Methods 5, 5D, 26A, and 29  -  already "provide the necessary data for the Method 2 flow rate calculations." 81 Fed. Reg. at 67,084. EPA also states that for input-based standards "you must still use Method 2" to determine stack gas velocity. In proposed section 16.3, EPA explains that measurement of stack gas moisture using Method 4 also may be required for conversion to units of the standard, but notes that when using Method 5, 5D, 26A, or 29 for a "performance test" the "Method 4 moisture determination may be made using the water collected in the impingers" together with other data that must be recorded. Id. at 67,085. In contrast, because Methods 26 and 30B do not require isokinetic sampling, EPA says that when gas flow rate is needed to determine compliance, such as with output-based standards, EGUs "must make a separate Method 2 determination during each test run." Similarly, EPA says that separate Method 4 measurements must be made with Methods 26 and 30B. Id.
The commenter supported these new provisions but believes that they could be worded more clearly. For example, when EPA refers to "Method 2 flow rate calculations" "us[ing] Method 2," and "the Method 4 moisture determination," the commenter believed that EPA means the data collected under Method 5, 5D, 26A, or 29 that is equivalent to what is collected under Methods 2 and 4. The commenter requested that EPA confirm that and consider using terms like "Method 2-equivalent" and "Method 4-equivalent" data, procedures, or determinations. In addition, in section 16.3, the commenter was concerned that where EPA says that Method 4 determinations may be made under Methods 5, 5D, 26A, and 29 "for the performance test," someone might interpret that to suggest that the same is not true for other types of tests (like PM CEMS correlations or HCl CEMS RATAs). To avoid that possibility, the commenter suggested that EPA remove the phrase "for the performance test."
Response 2: The Agency appreciates the commenter's suggestions and notes that every isokinetic method (i.e. Method 5, 26A, or 29) includes the use of Method 2 and Method 4 for determining average stack gas velocity, (vs) and moisture content. The data collected in the performance test must be used for the calculations of the emissions; data may not be substituted from any other source or method. With respect to this issue, the rule language in sections 16.1 and 16.3 has been clarified to avoid the apparent confusion the proposed wording caused.
Comment 3: Commenter 20609 requested that EPA consider broadening its discussion to authorize collection of the necessary data using a certified stack monitor. Although integral to Methods 5, 26A and 29, Method 2-equivalent flow measurement data can lead to volumetric flow calculations that are biased high when the stack flow has significant non-axial components. EPA recognized this problem and promulgated Methods 2F, 2G and 2H in 1999. Most EGUs affected by the MATS Rule are also subject to the CEMS requirements codified in Part 75 and are required to install and certify continuous stack flow monitors. Many EGU owner/operators have elected to choose among Methods 2F, 2G and 2H when certifying their stack flow monitors in order to obtain as accurate volumetric flow data as possible. As a result, the commenter requested that EPA consider revising the rule to accept use of volumetric flow data from continuous stack flow monitors that are certified in accordance with Part 75 requirements. The flow data should not consist of the hourly averages that are routinely submitted to EPA's Clean Air Markets Division. Rather, the volumetric flow rate used would be the average value computed from DAHS-stored data over the time period of each stack test run. Although EPA already is considering such a CEMS alternative in response to a source-specific alternative test method request, authorizing such a procedure in this rule would provide EPA the opportunity to build into the rule electronic reporting data elements to support use of the alternative.
Response 3: In April and May of 2016, the Agency received a request under §63.7(e)(2)(ii) for use of an affected facility's flow monitoring system to measure stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate in lieu of Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2F, 2G, or 2H when conducting quarterly testing to demonstrate compliance with the MATS Rule. In the decision issued on December 6, 2016 to disapprove that request, the Agency explains that the reference test methods provide a measurement more representative of the source at the time of the performance test than the installed flow monitoring system for two reasons: (1) use of the multipoint traverse and (2) the fact that the accuracy of the facility's flow monitoring system is only verified, to most, twice a year during the relative accuracy test audit. For these reasons, the Agency has not revised the rule to authorize use of the continuous flow monitoring data for quarterly testing.
14.4 Section 22
Comment 1: Commenter 20606 provided commenter on Appendix E section 22, specifically regarding the other information for each test. The commenter said in the examples of test information to be submitted via PDF versus XML format, the EPA references "stack testers' credentials". The meaning of the preceding reference is not clear. The only possible reporting under MATS for which there is a specific "credential" is the Air Emission Test Body (AETB) requirement for RATAs of 40 CFR Part 75 monitoring systems. However, the preceding "credential" information is already submitted via ECMPS and need not be submitted via PDF. The EPA should strike the reference "stack testers' credentials".
Response 1: The Agency agrees that the AETB requirement applies only to Part 75 monitoring systems. Although Hg, HCl, and HF CEMS are not Part 75 monitoring systems, the Agency notes that an SO2 monitoring system that is used as a surrogate for HCl under MATS must conform to Part 75 requirements. Therefore, any RATA report for the SO2 monitoring system must include evidence that a "Qualified Individual" was on-site during the test. No change was made to the rule.
Comment 2: Commenter 20612 supported submitting detailed performance test report electronically as PDF files. However, EPA should remove its proposed list of requirements for the PDF stack tests reports required under Table 8 and Section 22 of Appendix E and simply reference the stack test requirements included in the recently finalized revisions to §60.8(f) and §63.7(g). Otherwise, the difference between the content lists will introduce inconsistency between rules. For Appendix E, the commenter suggested: "22.0 For each test, you must submit a detailed test report for each test in PDF format that meets the requirements of §63.7(g) as in addition to the XML data file required by this appendix." The commenter said this revision would also replace the incorrect notion conveyed by Agency's proposed language that the PDF reports would include the test information that was somehow "incompatible with electronic reporting." Submitting the test report in PDF format through ECMPS would, in fact, be electronic reporting. The simple truth that some information may be better suited to present in a PDF file rather than XML does not detract from the fact that reporting such information electronically in that format provides ready access to the information in the full context of the report. The commenter advocated that the rule should clearly require sources to submit a complete, detailed PDF stack test report rather than the unclear list of items in the originally proposed language. Providing a complete stack test report as a PDF file would give sources an efficient way to satisfy the requirements of §63.7(g), would allow for complete transparency, would document a full record that can be preserved electronically, and would give agency personnel ready access to the information in the full context of the whole report in situations where a more detailed review is deemed necessary. In addition, the commenter said to avoid confusion, the proposed reporting in Sections 14-21 of Appendix E should not be considered a "test report" but only a supplemental collection of XML data reported in addition to the complete test report. The complete test report should meet the requirements of §63.7(g) and provide any other data that the source and/or testers believe is necessary to fully document the details, performance, and results of the test. The PDF version of the test report should document the items in §63.7(g), but it is not necessary that all these items be reported in XML file since many of the items are more appropriately documented in the full PDF version of the test report.
Response 2: The Agency finds the commenter's suggestions inconsistent. On one hand, the commenter has stated that the supplemental XML stack test data reporting requirements are unnecessary for compliance but on the other hand, the commenter maintains that submitting a complete PDF file which would contain all stack test data  -  including the XML stack test data - would provide full context for activities such as compliance determination. The commenter cannot have it both ways, especially when the commenter seeks elimination of many of the stack test data elements. The rule will maintain submission of the Agency-developed, pared-down to the essentials version of test report, which was tailored for use by EGUs, in addition to other material best submitted via a PDF file format (see section 30 of Appendix E).
Note that, as mentioned before, the commenter's suggestion that submission of PDF files constitutes electronic reporting is incorrect; therefore, supplying such data in that manner only remains incompatible with electronic reporting. However, the commenter and others are welcome to submit PDF files of their test reports in addition to the rule's requirements.

The Agency agrees that current language in section 30 of Appendix E could be confusing with respect to the requirements of §63.7(g); therefore, the introductory part of that section will be revised to say: "You must provide for each test included in the XML data file described in this appendix with supporting documentation in a PDF file submitted concurrently with the SML file, such that all  the data required to be reported by §63.7(g) are provided. That supplemental data includes but is not limited to diagrams. . ."
Comment 3: Commenter 20594 stated EPA must provide further guidance in section 22 regarding other information for each test. The commenter said Appendix E asks for, "All information pertaining to the test that is ordinarily included in a comprehensive test report . . . ." Id. at § 22.0. Since testers and report information can vary, the information requested by Appendix E will differ. In addition, Appendix E begins with a list of "other information" but says "including but not limited to," which opens up the data metric to include an unspecified amount of information for each test. EPA must list the testing information that it is requiring for MATS.
Response 3: The Agency agrees with the commenter that the information pertaining to each test can vary, depending on the method(s) used. However, for that very reason, the Agency maintains that the type of information described in section 30 of Appendix E should not be overly prescriptive. Apart from the new rule language, described above, which ensures that all of the information required by §63.7(g) is submitted, emission testers are best able to identify what other specific information may be needed to be included in each test report.
15 Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
15.1 EO 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review; and, EO 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
Comment 1: Commenter 20594 stated stakeholders have not had a meaningful opportunity to comment. The Proposed Rule was published in the Federal Register on September 29, 2016. Comments are due on October 31, 2016. The comment period is only 30 business days. EPA recently extended the comment period 15 additional days after receiving numerous requests from prospective commenters. Executive Order 12866 directs a minimum of 60 days for comments on any regulatory action to allow for meaningful public comment.
The commenter said EPA proposed changes to a highly technical reporting schema that are much more than clerical. Substantive changes include a different frequency in reporting, type of data to be reported, omission/inclusion of data, and other issues discussed infra. These changes require that sources have more time to review and comment on the Proposed Rule to evaluate its practical and financial impacts.
The commenter disagreed with EPA's statement, "While the changes in this proposed rule will take time to implement, no significant impact on stakeholders is expected." 81 Fed. Reg. 67062, 67064 (Sept. 29, 2016). EPA explains, "Only the reporting format and mechanism would change." Id. The commenter disagreed these assertions could be accurate if the actual information to be reported and frequency of reporting is proposed to change by the Proposed Rule. The two years it took EPA to develop the Proposed Rule after EPA's first notification that it would streamline MATS reporting requirements is indicative of the substantive nature of the Proposed Rule -- See 79 Fed. Reg. 68795 (Nov. 19, 2014).
The commenter added the Executive Order also requires EPA to submit the Proposed Rule to OMB before issuing the proposal. Exec. Order No. 12,866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). This requirement applies to any significant regulatory action. The commenter said this rule defines significant regulatory action as any rule that may have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. EPA conclusively states that the Proposed Rule "is not a significant regulatory action" and did not submit the rule to OMB for review. 81 Fed. Reg. at 67069. The Proposed Rule does not identify the costs of the action. The commenter suggested this rule may be significant enough to warrant OMB review due to additional reporting obligations.
Response 1: The Agency disagrees with the commenter's assertions regarding not having a meaningful opportunity to comment on the rule. Executive Order 12866 (EO 12866) does not mandate a minimum comment period; rather, it requires each agency to develop its own rules, regulations, or procedures to provide the public with meaningful participation in the regulatory process, and it says each agency should afford the public a meaningful opportunity to comment on any proposed regulation, which in most cases should include a comment period of not less than 60 days (italics added for emphasis). Relevant to this rulemaking, the Agency has defined the threshold which triggers the EO 12866 protections as having an annual effect of on the economy of $100 million or more or having an adverse effect in a material way on the EGU sector. As mentioned earlier, merging the separate electronic data reporting systems  -  which is being pursued at industry's request  -  is not a significant regulatory action, as it yields an overall burden reduction of about $4.2 million per year in reporting and recordkeeping requirements, which amounts to about one-tenth of one percent of projected net utility income for 2015 (see 81 FR 67070, September 29, 2016 and page 2-15, https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/mats_final_ria_v2.pdf). Note that the Agency has been forthright regarding the significance level of this rulemaking; see the not significant determinations in preambles at 80 FR 15514 (March 23, 2015), 81 FR 67069 (September 29, 2016), and 82 FR 16738 (April 6, 2017). Because the rulemaking is not significant, no 60 day comment period is required. Even without a significant rulemaking, the Agency afforded commenters 45 days to provide their comments.
The Agency does not agree with the commenter's suggestion that additional time beyond the first 15 day extension was required for meaningful comment to be provided: as evidenced by the responses, other commenters were able to review the proposal thoroughly.
As noted earlier, the Agency's efforts to better align rule reporting with the industry-requested ECMPS Client Tool result in increased submission frequency and in provisions for PM, HCl, and HF CEMS, as well as PM CPMS; even so, annual burden is reduced. The Agency notes that the commenter should not look upon the delay of this rulemaking as indicative of some particular difficulty in merging the electronic monitoring systems; Agency activity  -  including rulemaking  -  is a function of priority and resources.
As mentioned earlier, the Agency agrees that rules categorized as significant must undergo OMB review; however, this rule is not significant. Nonetheless, the Agency may choose to obtain OMB review. The preamble of the promulgated rule will describe what review, if any, OMB provided.
16 Other
Comment 1: Commenter 20612 offered a suggestion for clarification and revision under 63.10010, which was not amended with this proposal. The commenter said §63.10010(h)(6)(i) and (ii), §63.10010(i)(5)(i)(A) and B, and §63.10010(j)(4)(i)(A) and (B) make reference to reporting information in "your annual deviation reports." However, the rule does not require sources to submit an annual deviation report. The commenter interpreted that EPA intended this information to be included in the semi-annual compliance reports and suggested that the rule should be revised to correct this error.
Response 1: Upon consideration of the comments, the Agency agrees that clarifications would be useful. Paragraphs (h)(6), (i), and (j)(4) of §63.10010 of the rule have been revised. References to "annual deviation reports," which are not required by Subpart UUUUU, have been removed from all of these paragraphs. Note that deviations are required to be reported in the compliance reports.
Comment 2: Commenter 20609 stated EPA needs to provide clarification of the testing requirements when switching between input- and output-based standards. The commenter noted EGUs must identify in their NOCS the emission limit with which they have complied. 40 C.F.R. § 63.10030(e)(2). In the 2016 Technical Corrections Rule, EPA added to § 63.10030(e) a provision explaining how EGUs can switch from an input- to an output-based standard. Id § 63.10030(e)(7)(iii). The provision requires (1) submission of a request at least 30 days before the switch, (2) a demonstration of compliance with both limits through "performance stack tests results" conducted within 30 days prior to submission, and (3) revision and submission of new monitoring and/or averaging plans. The commenter provided background on past comment and response statements. In response to UARG comments on the proposed rule, EPA agreed that "stack test" results are not necessary for those EGUS demonstrating compliance using CEMS and said that the rule would be revised to remove the words "stack test," so that a stack test would only be required for any EGU using quarterly stack testing to comply. 2016 RTC at 110, 111. EPA also said that it was revising the requirement to allow tests to be conducted up to 45 days prior to submission of the request, in order to allow time to get testing results. Id. at 111. Neither revision was reflected in the final rule language. EPA should correct those oversights when it finalizes this rule.
Response 2: As mentioned in response to comment 2 of section 5.6.3, the rule allows data from CMS, as well as stack test data, to be used to justify switching from one standard to the other. Note that the rule allows EGU owners or operators to use data from as far back as 45 days prior to the submission date of the request for the switch, as part of the request.  See section 63.10030(e)(7)(iii)(A)(3).

The Agency also notes that section 63.10030(e)(7)(i) has been removed from the rule and reserved because the requirement is for an initial Notification of Compliance Status to include summarized results of annual and triennial performance tests which have not yet been performed is incorrect; the requirement to submit these test summaries belongs in §63.10031, not §63.10030; and text similar with that of §63.10030(e)(7)(i) does, in fact, exist in §63.10031(c)(7), which requires the annual and triennial test results to be summarized in the semiannual compliance reports. Be advised that when the semiannual reports are phased out in the last quarter of 2019, summaries of these tests must be included in the quarterly compliance reports under §63.10031(g).
Finally, a note has been added to §63.10030(e)(7)(iii), clarifying that requests to switch from one standard to another are made subsequent to, and are not part of, the initial Notification of Compliance Status.
Comment 3: Commenter 20609 stated EPA proposes to add a requirement for EGUs, including those participating in averaging plans, to report rolling average emission rates for Hg. Proposed § 63.10031(f)(2) and App. E section 9.0. EPA also proposes to require reporting of additional reference method data for all performance tests, including "Hg LEE tests." Proposed App. E section 14.1. The commenter said in the 2016 Technical Corrections Rule, EPA revised § 63.10009(a)(2) to make clear that the alternative 90-group boiler operating day rolling average standard for Hg is an option and that the 30-group boiler operating day rolling average standard also may be used. Unfortunately, the Technical Corrections Rule introduced two inadvertent errors that warrant correction before implementation of these new more detailed reporting requirements. In the proposed revisions to the section, EPA inadvertently created an error by listing only CEMS and manual performance testing, and not including sorbent trap monitoring, among the options for demonstrating compliance with the 30-group boiler operating day Hg standard. When UARG asked EPA to correct that oversight, EPA responded: "We agree that sorbent trap monitoring data should have been added to the option to use a 30-boiler operating day rolling average for Hg. The commenter disagreed that subpart UUUUU does not provide a manual performance testing option for Hg. Method 30B is listed in both Table 2 and Table 5. Section 63.1009(a)(2) is revised to include sorbent trap monitoring." (2016 RTC at 88). However, rather than list sorbent trap monitoring among the options, EPA changed "manual performance testing" to "manual performance (LEE) testing." The commenter stated this revision is confusing because LEE testing is not conducted using continuous sorbent trap monitoring under Appendix A, and § 63.10009(a)(ii) appears to prohibit EGUs with LEE status from participating in facility averaging. The commenter suggested EPA should use this opportunity to clarify § 63.10009(a)(2) by listing "sorbent trap monitoring" as an option for calculating rolling averages under an averaging plan, and removing the reference to LEE testing. The commenter was concerned that if this is not corrected, ECMPS might be programmed to expect Method 30B test data from EGUs participating in averaging plans, rather than data from the sorbent trap monitoring systems required for those EGUs under Appendix A if they do not opt to use Hg CEMS.
Commenter 20609 added while making clear in § 63.10009(a) that the 30-group boiler operating day rolling average standard is available for Hg, EPA did not revise the provision that sets out the equation for calculating such averages. Specifically, the applicability of § 63.10009(b)(2), which provides equation 2a for calculation of the weighted 30-boiler operating day rolling average emission rates, is limited to "pollutants other than Hg." Although commenters on the proposed rule asked EPA to make that correction, EPA deemed the comment outside the scope of the rulemaking. 2016 RTC at 94-95. Because EPA now has proposed that EGUs report 30-group boiler operating day averages for Hg, EPA should take this opportunity to make clear in the rule that the equation in § 63.10009(b)(2) should be used to calculate those averages.
Response 3: Upon consideration of the commenter's suggestions, the Agency agrees that clarifications would be helpful. Paragraph (a)(2) of §63.10009 of the rule has been revised to clarify the types of data that may be used to determine weighted average Hg emission rates (WAERs). In addition, the rule now allows data from Hg CEMS, sorbent trap monitoring systems, and, consistent with paragraph (a)(1)(ii), the results of quarterly Hg emission tests for oil-fired EGUs (but not annual LEE tests) to be used for Hg emissions averaging. Finally, the words "pollutants other than Hg" have been removed from the introductory text of paragraph (b)(2) of §63.10009 of the rule, and in the rule's Equation 2a nomenclature, the words "or sorbent trap monitoring" have been added to the definition of "Heri".
Comment 4: Commenter 20609 stated Sections 63.10010(h)(6)(i), (i)(5)(A) and (B), and (j)(4)(i)(A) and (B) of the current rule specify what data from PM CPMS, PM CEMS, and HAP metal CEMS must be excluded from compliance determinations. The provisions currently require reporting of any "monitoring system malfunctions or out of control periods" in "annual deviation reports," and reporting of "any monitoring system qualify assurance or quality control activities " in the semi-annual compliance report "under § 63.10031(b)." The commenter said that EPA should revise § 63.10010(i) to simply refer to Appendix C, and remove the other details that might conflict with the more detailed requirements. In any event, to ensure that the rule remains current after January 1, 2018, EPA should replace any references to "annual deviation reports" and "under § 63.10031(b)" in those provisions with a requirement to report "under § 63.10031," which would include the existing reports as well as the new appendices.
Response 4: As mentioned earlier, upon review of the commenter's suggestions, the Agency agrees some clarifications are warranted. Paragraphs (h)(6), (i), and (j)(4) of §63.10010 of the rule have been revised. Likewise, references to "annual deviation reports," which are not required by Subpart UUUUU, have been removed from the rule. Note that deviation reporting remains a component of compliance reports.
Also note that in paragraphs (h)(6)(i), (i), and (j)(4)(i), the requirement to report QA/QC activities per §63.10031(b) has also been removed from the rule because §63.10031(b) concerns the schedule for semiannual compliance reports submissions, not QA/QC activities; this removal addresses the commenter's recommendation to replacing it with a more general reference to §63.10031. While considering this comment, the Agency found inconsistency between the text of §63.10010(h)(6)(i), (i)(5)(i)(A), and (j)(4)(i)(A) and (B) that calls for reporting of out of control periods in annual deviation reports and the and the text in §63.10010(h)(7), (i)(5)(ii), and (j)(4)(ii) that calls for out of control period reporting "upon request." The Agency believes that these latter paragraphs are incorrect because reporting of QA test results is mandatory for all CMS. Therefore, three revisions to rule have been made.  First, the last sentence in paragraphs (h)(6)(i), (j)(4)(i)(A), and (j)(4)(i)(B), containing the incorrect reference to §63.10031(b), has been removed. Second, paragraphs (h)(7) and (j)(4)(ii) now require the QA/QC activities for PM CPMS and HAP metals CEMS to be reported. Third, a new paragraph, k, has been added to §63.10031, with a corresponding summary in Table 8, requiring the QA/QC activities for PM CPMS and HAP metals CEMS to be reported quarterly, in a PDF file. These reports will be due within 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter, starting with a report for the first quarter of 2021. Reporting in a PDF file is appropriate in this instance because there are no standardized QA test procedures for these CMS in the Code of Federal Regulations; their QA test requirements are found only in source-specific MATS monitoring plans, and will likely vary from source-to-source.
Finally, for consistency with new Appendix C, the various requirements for certification, operation, maintenance, etc. of PM CEMS that were specified in paragraph (i) of the rule have been replaced with cross-references to the applicable sections of Appendix C.
17 Request for Extension
Comment 1: Commenter 20594 stated that it appreciates EPA's consideration of its comments [on the proposed rule amendments]. The commenter urged EPA to provide sources additional clarification and modifications of some areas of the proposed rule [Note: These are summarized in the appropriate sections of this document]. The commenter stated that it further reserves the right to comment on additional areas of the rule given that the time for comment has not been adequate.
Response 1: The comment is moot, as the Agency extended the public comment period by 15 days, in response to the requests for an extension (see 81 FR 75365, October 31, 2016).
Comment 2: Commenters 20587, 20590, and 20589 all requested an extension of the current October 31, 2016 deadline for public comment on the MATS Completion of Electronic Reporting Requirements proposal that was published in the Federal Register on September 29, 2016 (81 Federal Register 67062).
Commenter 20587 stated that the proposal represents a substantial change to how the data are reported under the MATS Rule. Given the scope of the changes, the proposal warrants additional time for review in order to provide meaningful comments to this complex rule. In the preamble of this proposal, the Agency appears to categorize these changes as simple format changes, stating that "no significant impact on stakeholders is expected." The commenter stated that it disagrees with this categorization. The proposed changes restructure the way much of data is reported and, in some cases, add new reporting requirements and accelerate the frequency that the data are reported. In light of these considerations, the commenter requested that EPA extend the comment period for this proposed rule by at least an additional 30 days. This extension will allow time needed to thoroughly review how the changes will impact current operations and procedures, as well as how data compiled by third parties may need to be modified, and provide the most meaningful comment on this proposal.
Commenter 20590 stated that it made this request on behalf of a variety of electric utilities that are participating in an electric utility funded workgroup that is focused primarily on addressing reporting issues related to the MATS Rule. The commenter stated that it supports the Agency's attempt to simplify and streamline MATS reporting requirements, but the proposal represents a substantial change to how the data are reported under the MATS Rule. Given the scope of the changes, the proposal warrants additional time for review. The proposed changes restructure the way much of the data is reported and, in some cases, add new reporting requirements and accelerate the frequency that the data are reported. In addition to new reporting requirements for HCl and HF CEMS in Appendix B of the MATS Rule, the proposal includes three completely new appendices which add appreciable monitoring and data reporting.
Commenter 20590 stated that while the Agency has provided draft reporting instructions in the docket for the new quarterly MATS compliance reports, the EPA has not provided similar draft instructions for the supplemental test data reports in Appendix E, which is largely just a list of data elements that sources must report. Lacking draft instructions for the proposed supplemental test data reports, it is not always clear precisely what information would be required based on the brief description in the proposed rule or exactly how that information might be reported in various circumstances. This void will make it harder to determine the underlying intent of the proposed requirements and more difficult to provide meaningful comments.
Commenter 20590 suggested that the complexity of the rule revisions can also be inferred from the amount of time that the Agency has spent on developing the proposal. It has been about two years since EPA indicated that it would "promulgate an additional data reporting revision to the MATS rule in the second phase" of the effort to streamline the MATS reporting requirements that it initiated by proposing interim reporting procedures in November of 2014 (79 Federal Register 68795). After allowing its staff such a long period to develop the proposal, it would seem inconsistent for the Agency to shortchange the rulemaking process by not providing adequate time for thorough public review and comment.
Commenter 20590 stated that the timing of EPA's proposal also exacerbates the difficulty for electric utilities to provide the thorough review within the current 30-day comment period. The current comment period coincides with the 30-day window during which sources must compile and submit quarterly reports under the MATS Rule as well as the ARP and CSAPR. The situation is compounded by the fact that comment period also coincides with the end of the MATS compliance demonstration deadline for facilities that received a one-year MATS compliance extension. Thus, in addition to being occupied with other quarterly reporting requirements, many sources will be busy reviewing and preparing the initial MATS performance test reports, the initial CEMS certification reports and the notifications of compliance status reports associated with those activities. Given their expertise, the personnel involved in preparing the reports are the same individuals who are needed to review and provide comments on proposed changes to the MATS electronic reporting requirements. The commenter stated that in light of these considerations, it requests that EPA extend the comment period for this proposed rule by 30 days (November 30th). This extension would allow sources and the public the time needed to review the changes thoroughly and to provide meaningful comment on this proposal. The commenter stated that it believes the extension will benefit EPA's final rulemaking.
Commenter 20589 stated that it is an ad hoc, unincorporated association of individual electric companies and industry trade associations that participates on behalf of its members collectively in administrative proceedings under the Clean Air Act, and in litigation arising from those proceedings and that it appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on this MATS proposal, but requires additional time to evaluate and develop those comments. Although the Agency may view its proposal as a simplification of current requirements, the proposal is quite complex. It involves almost a complete restructuring of the manner and schedule under which facilities will report compliance information to the Agency. It also contains a significant amount of new detail not only in the sections it revises and in the three new appendices it would add, but also in the draft reporting instructions EPA has made available in the docket. EPA's final action will benefit from submission of comments that are thorough and well considered.
Commenter 20589 stated the thirty day comment period EPA has provided is not adequate. That inadequacy is compounded by the complete overlap of the current comment period with deadlines for several other complicated tasks that must be performed by the same personnel who are needed to evaluate and assist in preparation of comments on the current proposal. Specifically, as the Agency is well aware, the third quarter 2016 reporting period for the ECMPS begins on October 1 and runs through October 31, 2016, the day now established as the deadline for comments on this proposal. During that period, the personnel who would be responsible for the new ECMPS reporting EPA has proposed will be fully occupied preparing and quality assuring quarterly reports to meet their existing reporting requirements, which include not only MATS data elements, but also reporting under the ARP and CSAPR. In addition, the comment period also coincides with the end of the 180-day period for completion of compliance demonstrations for those facilities that operated under a one-year MATS compliance extension. As a result, in addition to ECMPS reporting, many facilities also will be busy preparing and submitting reports associated with those activities, including MATS performance test reports and notifications of compliance status. In order to allow companies time to provide meaningful comment on this proposal, without compromising their compliance with existing reporting requirements, the commenter requested that EPA extend the current comment deadline by 30-days.
Commenter 20589 stated that in the event the Agency does not provide the requested extension, it hereby requests that the Agency hold a public hearing on its proposal and, in compliance with Clean Air Act § 307(d)(5), hold the comment period open for 30 days following that hearing. If the Agency holds such a hearing, one of Commenters 20589 representatives will attend and present testimony. However, if EPA provides the requested extension of the current comment deadline, the commenter will focus its efforts on its written comments and withdraw its request for a hearing.
Response 2: See response to comment 1 of section 17.  With regard to other comments, the Agency is disappointed that the commenters who represent the industry which requested changes to make the MATS electronic reporting system more like the existing ECMPS Client Tool suggest that the revisions are now burdensome, rather than consistent.  In keeping with our pledge for industry-requested consistency, we will continue on the path for one electronic reporting system.
The Agency notes that EGU owners or operators are required to provide the information in Appendix E regardless of whether draft  -  or final  -  reporting instructions have been prepared.  Even so, we recognize that such instructions can ease implementation and enhance uniformity across responders; therefore, we have prepared and posted draft reporting instructions for Appendix E. The Agency finds that commenters who believe this rule's alleged complexity has delayed its promulgation are incorrect; Agency activity  -  including rulemaking  -  is a function of priority and resources.
While the Agency understands the effort needed to meet reporting obligations, EGU owners or operators have known about these requirements for over 4 years.  Prudent EGU owners or operators would have been practicing and delegating report review, development, and submission and would be prepared to meet those obligations.
Comment 3: Commenter 20609 provided comments on the expiration of the existing transition period on April 16, 2017 (§ 63.10031(f)). The commenter stated that as a result of the expiration of this transition period, if EPA does not promulgate another rule revision that is effective prior to that date, electronic reporting will revert back to the two system structure originally adopted in the 2012 rule. In the March 2015 final rule, EPA reasoned that this deadline was necessary in order to ensure that data submitted in the future "is consistent with the database accessibility that is associated with information reported in structured XML formats" in the event the conversion to ECMPS cannot be completed. 80 Fed. Reg. at 15,512.
Commenter 20609 stated if EPA plans to move forward with the concepts in its current proposal, which the commenter assumes it will, EPA must take the time to carefully review comments and make adjustments necessary to make the rule clear and consistent. Although no rule is perfect, EPA cannot expect EGUs to comply if the rule is internally inconsistent or ambiguous. If EPA does not have time to complete those tasks and get a final rule (taking into account all comments) in effect prior to expiration of the current transition period, EPA must be prepared to extend it. EPA has not, and cannot, justify requiring EGUs to both spend resources to implement an entirely new expanded reporting program while at the same time temporarily complying with a different system with which EGUs have little familiarity and no process in place to implement. In short, if EPA needs more time to finalize the rule, EPA must extend the transition period for the same reasons it created that period in the first place.
Commenter 20609 stated that although all aspects of this proposal are not noncontroversial, it believes that extension of the transition period to allow for orderly finalization of this rule would be noncontroversial. As a result, that could be accomplished using the same direct final rule procedure EPA used in 2015. The commenter stated that it also does not believe that continuation of the transition period for a few months would significantly impact the quality of the data available to the public.
Response 3: See the response to comment 1 of section 17.  The rule further extends the PDF reporting through December 31, 2020, to allow sufficient time to develop and test the necessary software, and to draft reporting instructions.
Comment 4: Commenter 20609 provided comments on the period for implementation of new ECMPS reporting requirement(s). Commenter 20609 stated that once a final rule is issued, both EGUs and EPA will need time to prepare software and procedures necessary to implement the new XML formats. Although EPA does not commit to finalizing a rule by any date, EPA proposes to require submission of the new reports and information in XML format starting on and after January 1, 2018, with one exception. That exception is that a report covering a period or event that occurred before that date would still be submitted in PDF format (e.g., a semi-annual report for the period July 1 to December 31, 2017 would still be submitted in PDF format by the current deadline of January 31, 2018. 81 Fed. Reg. at 67,065.
Commenter 20609 stated that in the past when EPA has implemented major changes to Part 75 or ECMPS reporting requirements, the Agency has provided a significant period of time for implementation. For example, when EPA transitioned from the old Part 75 reporting format to the current XML format in ECMPS, EPA made the new format optional for an entire year to allow for a phased transition. Similarly, when EPA finalized the MATS rule, EPA began circulating and taking informal comment on draft reporting instructions and XML schema for the new ECMPS reporting requirements in April 2013, a full two years before EGUs were required to start submitting quarterly emissions reports through ECMPS for MATS.
Commenter 20609 stated that this rule, when finalized, will require similar resources and time for implementation. The implementation period must be sufficient to cover not only the software programming by DAHS vendors, and EPA's ECMPS contractor, but also the development by EGUs of procedures to ensure that all of the recorded information (including information recorded by hand) is properly input into the DAHS and quality assured. And, EGUs have to do that while still complying with the existing reporting requirements of the rule.
EPA has essentially proposed an implementation timeframe that would provide EGUs, EPA, and their software vendors the equivalent of 3 calendar quarters before the beginning of the calendar quarter in which they will begin complying with the rule's new requirements. That assumes that EPA will finalize the rule, and other documentation, before the end of the current transition period, which EPA has not proposed to alter. If EPA cannot do that, EPA also will need to extend the starting date for the new requirements to preserve the proposed implementation period. However, the commenter is concerned that the amount of time EPA proposes will not be enough time even if the rule and material are released before April 16, 2017. For example, that timeframe does not appear to provide time for solicitation of feedback on the remaining reporting instructions, or for discussions to resolve rule ambiguities or inconsistencies that may be discovered in the final rule. Moreover, if EPA is not able to complete revisions to the ECMPS Client Tool in time for EGUs to test it, EGUs will be forced to use a tool that is not ready. As a result, the commenter requested that EPA lengthen the implementation period to a minimum of 6 calendar quarters.
Finally, to ensure that the implementation period is fully accommodated even if there is a delay between completion of the rulemaking package and its signature by the Administrator, Commenter 20609 suggested that the rule include a start time that is expressed as a number of full calendar quarters after the effective date of the final rule rather than the January 1, 2018 date EPA proposed.
Response 4: See response 1 to section 17 and response 3 to section 17.
18 Incorporation by Reference
Comment 1: Commenters 20595, 20598, and 20603 supported comments submitted by the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)-docket ID 20609.
Commenters 20593, 20595, 20598, 20600, 20601, 20603, and 20608 supported comments submitted by RMB Consulting and Research, Inc-docket ID 20612.
Response 1: See previous responses to those comments.