FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF MERCURY MONITORING TECHNIQUES 12 May 2004 Draft Report Infrastructure, buildings, environment,

communications U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Markets Division FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF MERCURY MONITORING TECHNIQUES Draft Report Brent Hall Project Manager Wojciech Jozewicz Project Advisor Laura Nessley Quality Assurance/ Quality Control Specialist Prepared for:

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Markets Division Dr. Ruben D. Deza Prepared by:

ARCADIS G& M, Inc.

4915 Prospectus Drive Suite F Durham North Carolina 27713 Tel 919 544 4535 Fax 919 544 5690 Our Ref.:

RN096402.0001.00002 Date:

12 May 2004 i Table of Contents CONTENTS List of Acronyms iii 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Scope 1 1.2 Regulatory Framework 2 1.2.1 Precision Criterion 4 1.2.2 Reliability Criterion 4 1.2.3 Accessibility and Timeliness Criteria 5 1.2.4 Summary of Subparts F and G 6 1.3 Methods 8 1.3.1 Ontario Hydro Method 8 1.3.2 CEMS 9 1.3.3 Sorbent Trap Method 10 1.3.4 Fuel Sampling 11 2. Systems Comparison 14 2.1 Precision 14 2.1.1 Variance ( F Test) 14 2.1.2 Correlation Analysis 16 2.1.3 Bias ( t test) 17 2.2 Reliability 19 2.3 Accessibility and Timeliness 21 2.3.1 Ontario Hydro Method 21 2.3.2 CEMS 21 2.3.3 Sorbent Trap Method 22 2.3.4 Fuel Sampling 23 2.4 Missing Data Substitution 25 ii Table of Contents 2.5 Qualitative Comparison of CEMS and Sorbent Traps 26 3. Summary 28 3.1 Precision 28 3.2 Reliability 28 3.3 Accessibility and timeliness 29 iii Table of Contents List of Acronyms ng/ L Nanograms Per Liter AAS Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy AMS Alternative Monitoring System ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials CEMS Continuous Emission Monitoring System CFR Code of Federal Register CMS Continuous Monitoring System CO2 Carbon Dioxide CRM Certified Reference Material CSA Clear Skies Act CVAAS Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy CVAFS Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence Spectroscopy DQI Daily Quality Indicator EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency H2O2 Hydrogen Peroxide Hg Mercury ICR Information Collection Request ISO International Organization for Standardization KCl Potassium Chloride KMnO3 Potassium Permanganate LOI Loss on Ignition iv Table of Contents ME Measurement Error NIST National Institute of Standards & Technology NOX Nitrogen Oxide OH Ontario Hydro PS Performance Standard QA Quality Assurance QC Quality Control RA Relative Accuracy RATA Relative Accuracy Test Audit RDF Refuse Derived Fuel RPD Relative Percent Difference RSD Relative Standard Deviation SO2 Sulfur Dioxide U. S. United States USGS United States Geological Survey 1 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report 1. Introduction 1.1 Scope This report evaluates and compares the various mercury ( Hg) emission monitoring methods in light of potential qualitative performance in a Hg emissions quantification program such as a market based cap and trade program. Such an evaluation must be based on certain, pre defined criteria or attributes. In this report, the methods are evaluated on the basis of the attributes defined in 40 CFR 75, which include precision, reliability, accessibility, and timeliness. The 40 CFR 75 pertains to the pollutants sulfur dioxide ( SO2) and nitrogen oxide ( NOX) ( as well as carbon dioxide [ CO2], opacity and volumetric flow) but it does not address mercury.

According to 40 CFR 75.40, the owner of an affected unit is required to install a continuous emissions monitoring systems ( CEMS), but may apply to the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) administrator for approval of an alternative monitoring system ( AMS) to determine average hourly emission data for SO2 and NOX and/ or volumetric flow by demonstrating that the AMS has the same or better precision, reliability, accessibility, and timeliness as that provided by the CEMS. Subsequently, AMSs are compared to the CEMS method, where the CEMS can be seen as a " base" system. AMSs may also be compared to a parallel operating reference method. Thus, 40 CFR 75.40 is written for comparison of one AMS against an existing CEMS ( or one reference method). Some Hg CEMS are commercially available and in refinement stage, while others are in their infancy stage; however, all are currently referenced with American Society for Testing and Materials ( ASTM) D6784 02, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal Fired Stationary Sources, or the Ontario Hydro ( OH) Method. Accordingly, for mercury, no " base" system has been established at this time.

In this report, not two, but four mercury " monitoring methods" are evaluated. These include: CEMS, sorbent trap sampling, fuel sampling, and the mercury reference method, Ontario Hydro. These are introduced in Section 1.3. 2 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report It should be pointed out that fuel sampling is not a monitoring method, nor is it a continuous method, but it is of interest as a sampling method. 1 Sorbent trap sampling could be considered as a semi continuous method, because it is unable to provide continuous independent samples. Instead, it provides a continuous composite sample that is analyzed by an off site laboratory.

1.2 Regulatory Framework On December 15, 2003, EPA proposed new regulations on mercury emissions for Coal Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. Under the proposed regulation § 63.10007, affected units must monitor Hg emissions with a Continuous Monitoring System ( CMS) comprised of CEMS or Method 324 ( Sorbent Trap Sampling). The proposed regulation does not appear to specifically exclude use of alternate CMS and provides an avenue for substitution of an alternate CMS for the listed CMSs.

In the proposed Clear Skies Act of 2003 ( CSA), CEMS were proposed as a way to quantify Hg emissions for a market driven cap and trade system. Under the CSA, the administrator would specify requirements for CEMS. Additionally, any alternative monitoring system could be used as long as it provides comparable precision, reliability, accessibility, and timeliness as a CEMS. These performance criteria are the same indicators used in evaluating alternative monitoring systems under 40 CFR 75.

The regulations established under 40 CFR 75 include general requirements for the installation, certification, operation, and maintenance of continuous emission or opacity monitoring systems and specific requirements for the monitoring of SO2 emissions, volumetric flow, NOX emissions, opacity, CO2 emissions and SO2 emissions removal. Specifications for the installation and performance of CEMS, certification tests and procedures, and quality assurance tests and procedures are included in appendices A and B to 40 CFR 75.

1 It may be possible that in the future, continuous analytical technologies become available that can analyze mercury in solid samples. 3 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report Proposed amendments to 40 CFR Part 75 set forth the specific monitoring and reporting requirements for Hg mass emissions and include the additional provisions necessary for a cap and trade program. Part 75 is used in both the Acid Rain and the NOx Budget Trading programs, and most sources affected by this rulemaking are already meeting the requirements of Part 75 for one or both of those programs.

In order to ensure program integrity, EPA proposes to require states to include year round Part 75 monitoring and reporting for Hg for all sources. Proposed deadlines for monitor certification and other details are specified in the model trading rule. EPA believes that emissions will then be accurately and consistently monitored and reported from unit to unit and from State to State.

Part 75 also specifies reporting requirements. As is currently required for sources subject to both the Acid Rain program and the NOx Budget Trading program, EPA proposes to require year round reporting of emissions and monitoring data from each unit at each affected facility. Similarly, this data would be provided to EPA on a quarterly basis in a format specified by the Agency and submitted to EPA electronically using EPA provided software. EPA has found this centralized reporting requirement necessary to ensure consistent review, checking, and posting of the emissions and monitoring data at all affected sources, which contributes to the integrity and efficiency of the trading program.

Criteria for alternative monitoring systems and provisions to account for missing data from certified CEMS or approved alternative monitoring systems are found in 40 CFR 75.41 44. In these sections, the alternative monitoring system is compared to a " base" CEMS, both installed and operating in parallel at the same site. The base system is defined as a parallel operating, fully certified CEMS or reference method. In order to apply the " alternative" system, it must be demonstrated that the AMS has the same or better: precision, reliability, accessibility, and timeliness as that provided by the original " base" CEMS.

Of particular importance for the accessibility and timeliness criteria are Subpart F, record keeping requirements and Subpart G, reporting requirements, which are briefly discussed in the ensuing section. However, it should be kept in mind that 40 CFR 75 was published in November 1990. Since then, much has changed in regard to record keeping and reporting techniques as a result of advances in data acquisition, handling, and storage. New techniques have become available that, in addition to continuous monitoring, include real time data processing and near real time output in tabular as well as graphic format. Also the capacity for electronic data storage and handling has become greatly enhanced. For these reasons, it is 4 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report possible that certain sections of Subparts F and G are not pertinent to the existing situation.

Precision, reliability, accessibility and timeliness are discussed below.

1.2.1 Precision Criterion In 40 CFR 75.41( a), precision is determined by performance of an F test, a correlation analysis, and a t test to address bias. The F test and correlation analysis must be conducted according to procedures spelled out in 40 CFR 75.41. The procedure for the t test is included in 40 CFR 75, Appendix A, Specifications and Test Procedures. The CFR precision indicator appears to include both precision and bias, and probably would now be called " accuracy" using EPA's more current terminology for data quality indicators.

1.2.2 Reliability Criterion Reliability should be demonstrated by showing that the AMS is capable of providing valid 1 hour averages for 95.0 percent or more of the unit operating hours over a one year period and that the system meets the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 75, Appendix B, Quality Assurance ( QA) and Quality Control ( QC) procedures.

40 CFR 75, Appendix B includes the following main topics:

1. General QA and QC program 1.1 Requirements for all systems ( preventive maintenance procedures, record keeping, maintenance records)

1.2 Specific requirements for CEMS ( calibration, relative accuracy test audit [ RATA] procedures)

2. Frequency of testing 2.1 Daily Assessments ( calibration error test, daily flow interference check, data validation, QA, recording)

2.2 Quarterly Assessments ( linearity check, leak check, data validation, flow to load ratio or gross heat rate evaluation) 5 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report 2.3 Semiannual and Annual Assessments ( RATA, data validation, bias adjustment factor)

2.4 Recertification 2.5 Other Audits.

The reliability criterion can be seen as having two components. The first component requires that the continuous monitor produces certain data, 95 percent of the time. In other words, that the monitor is working reliably. The second component pertains to the data quality and format. The data must be valid 1 hour averages. The term " Valid" is not further defined in the 40 CFR 75, and must be defined first. It is recommended to use EPA's definition of " valid" which can be found in EPA's Introduction to Data Quality Indicator's ( DQIs). 2 1.2.3 Accessibility and Timeliness Criteria Accessibility and timeliness are closely related and are discussed together.

The accessibility attribute under 40 CFR 75 is described as follows: " To demonstrate accessibility equal to or better than the CEMS, the owner or operator shall provide reports and on site records of emissions data to demonstrate that the AMS provides data meeting the requirements of Subparts F and G."

From this definition it is clear that it pertains to data output, and not to physical accessibility of the monitor, which is not further discussed. Accessibility can thus be interpreted as the capability of the monitoring system to provide both personnel and other authorized parties unimpeded access to data records that adhere to predefined criteria, while fulfilling the specific requirements under Subparts F and G.

The timeliness attribute under 40 CFR 75 is described as follows: " To demonstrate timeliness equal to or better than the CEMS, it must be demonstrated that the AMS can:

2 Introduction to Data Quality Indicators Course. EPA's Quality website.

( http:// www. epa. gov/ QUALITY/ trcourse. html# intro_ dqi) 6 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report

Meet the requirements of subparts F and G

Provide a continuous quality assured, permanent record of certified emissions data on an hourly basis

Issue a record of data for the previous day within 24 hours"

Per definition, timeliness pertains to data only, and it can, thus be seen as a subattribute to data accessibility. Timeliness can be interpreted as the capability of the monitor to provide data on or before a specified time, while fulfilling the requirements under Subparts F and G.

1.2.4 Summary of Subparts F and G As mentioned before, Subpart F ( CFR 75) of 40 CFR 75 includes record keeping requirements, while Subpart G ( CFR 75) includes reporting requirements.

Subpart F has three sections that are potentially pertinent to the accessibility and timeliness criteria:

75.53 Monitoring plan 75.57 General record keeping provisions 75.59 Certification, quality assurance and quality control record keeping provisions Section 75.53 mandates that the monitoring plan should contain a description of the monitor site location for each monitoring component in the continuous emission ( or opacity) monitoring systems ( c)( 3) and ( c)( 4), as well as a table that describes the identifiable components. Also, a data acquisition and handling system table is required that includes identification and description of all major components of the automated data acquisition and handling system. ( c)( 5). This includes a copy of the test results verifying accuracy of the automated data acquisition and handling system ( once such results are available). Also required is a schematic stack diagram for the units monitored by a continuous emissions ( or opacity) monitoring system.

Section 75.57 provides separate record keeping provisions for SO2, NOX, and CO2, which are fairly similar in content. The provisions for SO2 are summarized below, as they can possibly be used as a future basis for provisions for Hg, because they may be pertinent to accessibility and timeliness. SO2 emission record provisions, ( c)( 1), ( c)( 2) and ( c)( 4), state that the owner or operator shall record for each hour 7 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report for each affected unit during unit operation, as measured and reported from each certified monitor:

Hourly average SO2 concentration and mass emission rate

Hourly average SO2 concentration and mass emission rate adjusted for bias if this adjustment is required

Percent SO2 monitor data availability

Method of determination for hourly average SO2 concentration

Hourly average volumetric flow rate

Hourly average volumetric flow rate adjusted for bias if this adjustment is required

Percent volumetric flow monitor data availability, method of determination for hourly average flow rate In addition, under Certification, quality assurance and quality control record keeping provisions ( Section 75.59), numerous QA/ QC parameters need to be recorded for the CMS that include calibration and RATA testing.

Subpart G addresses submission of records, confidentiality, notifications, monitoring plan submittals, certification and recertification submittals, quarterly reports and petitions. It is not likely that the requirements under Subpart G will have an effect on the evaluation of the different CMSs and Subpart G is not discussed in further detail. 8 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report 1.3 Methods 1.3.1 Ontario Hydro Method The ASTM recently issued the OH method under designation D6784 02 approved April 10, 2002. The OH method is an impinger train gas sampling method that differentiates mercury into particle bound, oxidized, and elemental fractions. The OH method was widely used as the basis for sampling plans under the recent mercury Information Collection Request ( ICR) phase III.

The OH method is applicable to the determination of elemental, oxidized, particlebound and total mercury emissions from coal fired stationary sources. Resulting emissions are expressed in concentration terms, µ g/ Nm3. Conversion of OH results into an annual mass emission will require application of additional calculations. Though the method explicitly claims applicability to coal fired stationary sources, the method does not appear to exclude the use of other fuels such as coke, orimulsion, oil, tires, refuse derived fuel ( RDF), or biomass. Use of alternate fuels may produce ash that may further confound speciation bias in the OH method but is not expected to effect total mercury.

In the OH method, sample is extracted isokinetically from the flue gas through a probe and filter assembly. Particulate matter is removed from the sample with a filter. The sample is then passed through a series of seven impingers contained in an ice bath to sequentially remove Hg. The first three impingers remove oxidized Hg from the sample with a potassium chloride ( KCl) solution. Elemental Hg is then removed in the fourth impinger containing an acidic hydrogen peroxide ( H2O2) solution, followed by three additional impingers containing acidic potassium permanganate ( KMnO3) solution. The remaining gas is then dried in an impinger containing a desiccant, and the Hg content in the dry flow is determined. Particlebound Hg is recovered from the " front half" of the sampling train, the probe and filter assembly, and analyzed by cold vapor atomic absorption spectroscopy ( CVAAS) or cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectroscopy ( CVAFS). Oxidized Hg recovered from the KCl impingers and connectors is measured by CVAAS or CVAFS. Elemental Hg is determined by adding the amount of Hg recovered in the impinger containing acidic H2O2 and its connector and the impinger containing KMnO3 and their connectors. 9 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report There are no known biases to the OH method for total Hg, however several conditions can affect the speciation of the sample. 3 As stated in the method, the relative standard deviations for gas phase elemental and oxidized Hg were less than 11 percent for concentrations greater than 3 µ g/ m3 and less than 34 percent for concentrations less than 3 µ g/ m3.4 A number of revisions to the OH method have been made since the Method 301 evaluation cited in the OH method. The precision of the OH method is likely to have improved since the initial Method 301 evaluation.

1.3.2 CEMS Hg CEMS are undergoing continuing development, with current technology being tested under various programs. Few, if any, commercial applications at coal fired power plants currently exist in the United States, but the technology is developing rapidly. Many CEMS vendors have participated in various field tests, including some conducted by EPA. Most manufacturers are in the process of making significant improvements or refinements to their monitors as time proceeds.

CEMS can be classified according to their method of converting oxidized Hg to elemental Hg as dry or wet. Wet systems convert Hg in impinger solutions, while dry systems thermally or catalytically convert the Hg species. Most CEMS can provide speciated Hg emissions values, but the development trend in industry is toward total Hg measurement. Based on operational experience and industry knowledge, the dry systems appear to offer more operational availability and require less maintenance, compared to wet systems. These CEMS provide quick real time Hg concentrations and many have inherent auto zeroing and system checks built into them. Based on operational experience, the dry systems are easier to operate overall because of not having any chemical interactions.

As previously mentioned, EPA has proposed regulations for Hg emissions from coal fired utilities and has also established a draft performance standard ( PS) 12A,

3 D6784 02 Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle Bound, and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal Fired Stationary Sources ( Ontario Hydro Method), ASTM International, West Conshohoken Pennsylvania, June 1, 2002.

4 ibid. 10 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report against which Hg CEMS can be evaluated. The current proposed regulation for Hg requires monitoring of total Hg only.

Evaluation of accuracy and precision of Hg CEMS is confounded by the rapid and continuing development of Hg CEMSs by vendors and the lack of published information on CEMS performance. Evaluation of the performance of CEMS will improve when suitable reference materials or procedures become available. A National Institute of Standards & Technology ( NIST) approved elemental mercury gas standard is still under development. EPA has developed PS 12A, which defines relative accuracy requirements for Hg CEMS measurement along with certain other QA requirements.

1.3.3 Sorbent Trap Method The sorbent trap sampling method for total Hg is in the laboratory/ pilot phase and is being tested on a limited scale. No references were found that support that the method has been applied commercially.

The sorbent trap technique uses 3/ 8 to ½  inch diameter cylindrical tubes containing activated carbon impregnated with potassium iodide to adsorb mercury from flue gas. The sampling system consists of a sample probe, Teflon ® tubing, a glass wool plug to collect particulate matter, a two part sorbent trap, a sample pump, and a gas meter, mounted in a console. The front section of the sorbent trap is used to chemically adsorb mercury. The back section, separated from the front by glass wool, collects any mercury that breaks through the front section. The flue gas is extracted through the carbon sorbent packed trap where the Hg is adsorbed. The sample pump mounted in the console, along with a flow meter and temperature gauges, creates the vacuum on the sorbent trap. The flow meter can be adjusted to achieve any desired flow rate through the sampling system according to the time period of sampling and the flow rate of the stack gas. Typically, the sorbent trap and the probe that secures it are the only things extending into the flue gas path. Once the sample has passed the sorbent trap and probe, it travels through a heated Teflon line to prevent condensation of any Hg that may adhere to the walls. Then the sample travels to the sample pump where the moisture is removed before passing through the dry gas meter.

Once the sorbent trap method has reached commercial status, it should be applicable to capturing total mercury with close to 100 percent efficiency from coalfired stationary sources. The method takes a continuous, cumulative sample over a given time period that can range from one hour to one week and possibly up to a 11 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report month. After this time period the sorbent trap is exchanged for a fresh one, and the used sorbent trap is sent to an off site laboratory to be analyzed according to standard methods. Currently, there is one known laboratory that analyzes these sorbent traps. The quantity of mercury is measured using a method with a detection limit of 0.5 nanograms per liter ( ng/ L) or 5 ppt in the leachate. The known analysis laboratory estimates that this detection limit is equivalent to about 1 ng/ m3 for a one week sampling period. In addition, the laboratory maintains that they can easily match the OH Method detection limits and performance criteria for total mercury.

1.3.4 Fuel Sampling Fuel sampling ( coal sampling and analysis) as an emissions measurement technique implicitly utilizes an emission factor approach; mercury emissions are some fraction of all the mercury inputs. Mercury in the fuel is generally considered the sole source of mercury emissions even though other mercury inputs could easily be incorporated into this approach if deemed necessary. Mercury content in the fuel and the amount of fuel burned are used to determine the mercury inputs to a unit. In the extreme or maximum emissions case, mercury emissions from a unit could be estimated as the total measured mercury inputs, discounting mercury retained in residuals such as fly ash or gypsum.

An alternate approach is to apply an emission factor, which can either be based on unit specific emission measurements or on average emission measurements for a defined class of technology employed. Measuring mercury content in the fuel and fuel inputs to units appears to be an integral part of the proposed mercury control legislation. Mercury inputs provide the baseline which emissions are compared to in control based legislation. Similarly, the proposed Clear Skies Act of 2003 reverts to a control based mercury emissions requirement based on fuel mercury content, should the administrator not establish the emissions trading system. 5 Fuel sampling will determine the total amount of mercury in the fuel. Mercury in the fuel can be expressed on a mass basis, either wet or dry, or can be normalized to the heating value of the fuel and be expressed on an energy basis. When the fuel is burned, the mercury in the fuel will be converted to elemental, oxidized, and particle bound mercury. Though the fuel sampling is most directly related to total 5 " Clear Skies Act of 2003" accessed at http:// www. epa. gov/ air/ clearskies/ Air_ 005. pdf 12 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report mercury emissions, it may be possible to estimate the partitioning of the mercury based on other fuel components and fuel firing conditions.

Accuracy and precision for mercury fuel sampling appear to be dependent upon both the analytical method and the specific matrix being analyzed. The standard test method for total mercury in coal ( ASTM D 3684 01) is reported to have a bias with respect to three reference materials analyzed. Bias was significant at a 95 percent confidence level for all three reference materials but appears to be dependent on the specific fuel. The mean Hg content from ICR phase II for bituminous coals at electric utilities was 0.11 ppm6. This was quite comparable to the Certified Reference Material ( CRM) used to evaluate bias in the ASTM method. Repeatability of the method is reported as 0.036 ppm, while reproducibility of the method is reported as 0.054 ppm. 7 In practice, fuel sampling can either be conventional or on line ( automatic). The ASTM and the International Organization for Standardization ( ISO) set standard practices for the sampling, sample preparation, and analysis of coal samples.

Conventional analysis is essentially a series of batch operations that entail the incremental removal of a specified series of relatively small quantities of coal from the process stream. Sample preparation covers a set of conditioning procedures such as drying, mixing, crushing, reducing and dividing, so the series of samples is transformed into a test sample that is appropriate for subsequent analytical procedures. Mercury is typically determined with the flameless atomic absorption spectroscopy ( AAS) method, where the powdered coal is first digested with oxidizing acids. Mercury in the sample solution is reduced to its elemental state with stannous chloride and then aerated from solution onto a silver screen placed in the vapor train. The silver screen is subsequently heated and the mercury vapor is carried by an airstream to the absorption cell. ( United States Geological Survey 6 National Risk Management Research Laboratory, " Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal Fired Electric Utility Boilers: Interim Report Including Errata Dated 3 21 02," EPA 600/ R 01 109, April 2002.

7 D3684 01 Standard Test Method for Total Mercury in coal by the Oxygen Bomb Combustion/ Atomic Absorption Method, ASTM International, West Conshohoken Pennsylvania 13 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report [ USGS] Circular 735: Methods8). AAS is usually conducted in specialized laboratories, implying that the samples will have to be shipped and that results are available some time after sampling and shipment ( assume one week).

On line analysis is a continuous series of rapid operations, where the product is conditioned for analysis and subsequently analyzed. During analysis, the coal is subjected to certain physical processes that interact with the sample and correlate the analyte quantity to a database of values that were previously obtained from coals that have been analyzed by conventional analysis.

At this point, on line analysis technology for mercury from solid samples is not yet commercially available. Thus, mercury sampling by means of fuel analysis constitutes conventional analysis.

8 http:// pubs. usgs. gov/ circ/ c735/ method. htm 14 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report 2. Systems Comparison 2.1 Precision As per 40 CFR 75, the precision criteria to be used to evaluate performance of an Hg CEMS compared to a reference method include variance, correlation, and bias. These precision criteria are related to performance of a reference method as opposed to some absolute value. The criteria are used because precision obtained from an alternative monitoring system is often required to be as good or better than the standard monitoring system; such is the case in 40 CFR 75.41.

In part 75, precision between the methods is compared using three statistical tests: an F test, a correlation test, and a t test. The F test is a comparison of the variance of emissions determined with the standard monitoring system and the variance of the alternative monitoring system. The correlation test provides a comparison of the responses of standard and alternate monitoring systems for linearity. The t test compares the average response of the standard and alternate monitoring system to ensure they are not significantly different. These three statistical tests, as they would be supplied to each method, are discussed in detail below.

2.1.1 Variance ( F Test)

Variance is determined with the F test. The F test ensures the variability in emissions encountered with an alternate monitoring system is not significantly larger than the variability encountered with the standard monitoring system. This F test includes the variability of the source and the variability of the monitoring system. Since the variability associated with the source is common to both systems, the F test compares the variability of the alternative and standard monitoring system without addressing the variability associated with the source. Alternatively, the variance associated with the method can be determined through co located and coincident sampling.

The reference method for mercury used in the recently proposed PS 12A is Ontario Hydro ( mercury) or Method 29 ( mercury and other metals). PS 12A requires duplicate sampling for mercury and sets a limit on the agreement of each test. The duplicate analysis can provide an estimate of method variance for the reference method. PS 12A requires the Relative Percent Difference ( RPD) of the duplicate analysis to be less than or equal to 10 percent and Relative Standard Deviation [ RSD] less than 14 percent for mean mercury concentrations above 1 µ g/ m3. The Method 301 evaluation published with the Ontario Hydro method, which utilized 15 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report quad trains, resulted in total vapor phase mercury RSD of 8.8 percent for baseline conditions and lower RSD for spiked conditions. A number of improvements to the Ontario Hydro method have been incorporated since the Method 301 evaluation. As a result, the precision of the Ontario Hydro method should be improved relative to the 301 evaluation.

The variability of mercury CEMS is to be governed primarily by the ability of the CEMS to pass a RATA as described in PS 12A. The relevant requirement is that the Relative Accuracy ( RA) be no greater than 20 percent. The RA is defined as the sum of the absolute value of the difference in the two methods plus the confidence coefficient, a function of the standard deviation of the differences in the two methods, divided by the mean of the reference method, or the applicable emission limit. Under Part 75, the bias could be removed by application of a bias adjustment factor. When the differences in the CEMS and the standard method ( e. g., Ontario Hydro) are not significant, the differences are a result of the random variability of the CEMS and the random variability of the standard method. Recently published RATA results of EPA sponsored CEMS research indicated initial RAs of 4 15 percent for CEMS evaluated and final RAs between 14 and 41 percent. 9 Insufficient detail was published to determine if significant bias was present from the CEMS. Further CEMS evaluation may be available in the near future with EPA reports on recent CEMS evaluations.

The quality assurance required of sorbent traps, including the variability of the analysis, appears to be governed in recently proposed mercury regulations by site specific quality assurance programs yet to be developed. Sorbent trap results for short duration tests, coincident with a reference method, may be evaluated using the RATA approach similar to CEMS. Two such RATA style tests were reported from recent EPA sponsored tests resulting in RAs of 9 and 12 percent10. Insufficient detail was published to determine if significant bias was present from the sorbent traps.

9 Midwest Research Institute, " Hg CEMS Field Observations: May July 2003." in Proceedings of International Conference on Air Quality IV," EERC/ EPRI/ US EPA/ US DOE, Arlington VA, September 22 24, 2003.

10 ibid. 16 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report The variability of fuel sampling for determining emissions incorporates several sources of error that are not typically evaluated simultaneously. The emissions estimate resulting from fuel sampling depends on representative fuel sampling, sample analysis, and process operations. In comparing the fuel sampling emissions to a reference method, such as Ontario Hydro, a constant emission factor would typically be applied; variability caused by process operations would be manifested in the reference method but not in the fuel sampling emissions estimate. Variation due to fuel sampling and analysis will both be included in a fuel sampling emissions estimate. Several methods could potentially be used for analyzing mercury in the fuel and there is no clear choice as to which is the best. Variability results of ASTM methods resulting from recent inter laboratory studies are incorporated in methods D3684, D6414, and D6722. For the three methods, variability of coal sample analysis at a single laboratory using the same lab equipment ( repeatability conditions) results in RSDs of 6 19, 5 11, and 2 17 percent, respectively. Repeatability of ASTM methods for mercury is typically represented as having a fixed component and a proportional component. Available data sets suggest there may be distinctions between the performance of low rank and high rank coals. Variability resulting from sampling itself and from coincident heating value analysis should result in increased variability over mercury analysis alone in estimating mercury emissions.

2.1.2 Correlation Analysis The correlation analysis in part 75.41 is performed to ensure the response of the AMS is linearly related to the response of a CEMS at each operating level. The criterion in part 75.41 is for the paired observation to be correlated with a Correlation Coefficient of 0.8 or better. In a general context, the correlation analysis demonstrates that the relative bias does not change with the measured value. The linearity of the reference method ( such as Ontario Hydro) is inferred by the lack of bias associated with the method. CEMS are not currently required to demonstrate that their output is linearly related to reference method results. However, PS 12A provides for determining the linearity of the CEMS by requiring measurement error ( ME) of no greater than 5 percent of span at zero, mid level, and high level gas standards. Various measures could be employed as part of a quality assurance program to ensure the analytical linearity of sorbent trap analysis and/ or fuel analysis. Analytical methods involving spiked samples can demonstrate linearity or the presence of matrix effects. 17 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report For sorbent traps, the appropriate loading of sorbent can be demonstrated by the clean recovery of the back half of the sorbent column. Ultimately, sorbent traps ( like CEMS or fuel sampling) could be challenged with a correlation test.

Fuel sampling is likely to fail in many instances because mercury control in the process equipment is not likely to be linearly related to input in all situations. Ultimately, fuel sampling ( like CEMS or sorbent traps) could be challenged with a correlation test.

2.1.3 Bias ( t test)

The determination of a statistically significant difference in two averages ( bias) is performed with a t test. In this case, t test can be used to compare the average mercury emissions from a standard and a proposed method. The t test is therefore an evaluation of the relative accuracy of the two emission measurement methods. If the methods are considered unbiased, the t test becomes an evaluation of accuracy. In Part 75.41, the t test compares a CEMS and an AMS over a long operating period. In Part 75, Appendix A, a similar evaluation is made in applying a Bias Adjustment Factor in the evaluation of RATA tests. The RATA tests are typically paired observations whereas the CEMS/ AMS comparison may not be completely paired or precisely concomitant. The evaluation depends largely on the variability of the test method with respect to the standard method and the number of data points in the average.

The ultimate accuracy of the CEMS emissions estimate is judged against a reference method. In recently proposed PS 12A the reference method for mercury is specified as either Ontario Hydro or Method 29. The PS 12A regulates total vapor phase mercury. Neither Ontario Hydro nor Method 29 indicates a bias in total mercury, though Ontario Hydro indicates biases may exist in the speciation of total mercury. For the purposes of total vapor phase emission estimates, adsorption or desorption from collected particulate and/ or from the front half equipment remains the only relevant bias. Such bias is minimized by sampling after the last control device, resulting in nearly particulate free sample, and in controlling probe temperatures using method procedures.

The bias of a mercury CEMS system can be evaluated over a short term through the use of a RATA as prescribed in the proposed PS 12A. The RATA ensures the CEMS is installed to provide representative results. The amount of the acceptable bias per PS 12A will vary depending on the variability of the test methods and the number of tests performed. Recently published RATA results of EPA sponsored 18 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report CEMS research indicated initial RAs of 4 15 percent for CEMS evaluated and final RAs between 14 and 41 percent. 11 There does not appear to be provisions for correcting statistically significant bias in the proposed regulation but this could be incorporated. With the development of standard gases for elemental and oxidized mercury, continued operation of the Hg CEMS could be validated daily in the same manner as Part 75 CEMS.

The bias of sorbent traps will be ascertained by quality assurance plans to be developed for each source. In principal, such a plan could ensure the representativeness of the sample through the use of RATA tests; this procedure may require modification to accommodate differences in sample times. Recent sorbent trap RATAs resulted in RAs of 9 and 12 percent respectively. 12 A quality assurance plan would likely address determination of the quantity of mercury captured as well as quantity of sample volume. Both procedures appear to have well established precedent.

The bias of fuel sampling for mercury emissions estimates is necessarily confounded with a determination of an emission factor through the use of some reference method. The results from fuel sampling must be multiplied by an emission factor to adjust for inherent mercury control resulting from process equipment. The ASTM methods indicate a fuel specific bias is associated with each analytical technique: D3684, D6414, and D6722. The bias on certified reference material ranged from  24 percent to 9 percent,  12 percent to insignificant, and  7 percent to insignificant for the three methods, respectively. One unbiased method to correct these analyses, failing the certification of an unbiased fuel mercury analytical technique, is through the use of the emission factor for each fuel used. In this case, the performance of the process equipment is then confounded with the unknown analytical bias. Furthermore, fuel sampling would only measure inputs on a semi continuous basis as opposed to emissions. Changes in process equipment performance which alter mercury emissions could not be recorded. Process equipment performance may change as a result of various factors including changes resulting from fuel source, load factor, Loss on Ignition ( LOI), control equipment operation, and temporal factors. Therefore, fuel sampling cannot currently be used to estimate maximum possible emissions with certainty. Development of both an 11 ibid.

12 ibid. 19 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report unbiased fuel mercury analysis technique and an accurate predictive model of process performance relative to mercury emissions are necessary to provide an independent validation of fuel sampling based emissions.

2.2 Reliability Under 40 CFR 75, reliability must be demonstrated by showing that the monitoring system is capable of providing valid 1 hour averages for 95.0 percent or more of the unit operating hours over a 1 year period and that the system meets the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 75, Appendix B, QA and QC procedures. The reliability criterion can be seen as having two components, which are discussed below.

The first component requires that the continuous monitor produces verifiable data 95 percent of the time. In other words, data that can be used to prove the monitor is working reliably. This aspect of reliability may be comparable to ruggedness.

The second component pertains to the data quality and format. The data must be valid 1 hour averages. " Validity" is not further defined in the 40 CFR 75, and can be defined within the context of EPA's DQIs13, which include precision, bias, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity. Validity as used within the reliability context under 40 CFR 75 is probably comparable to representativeness. Representativeness is the measure of the degree to which data suitably represent a characteristic of a population, parameter variations at a sampling point, a process condition, or an environmental condition. Representativeness DQIs are qualitative and quantitative statements regarding the degree to which data reflect the true characteristics of a well defined population. A number of DQIs relate to representativeness   in fact; precision, bias, and completeness all play integral roles. In this way, representativeness is an over arching indicator.

CEMS are rapidly developing and some commercially available CEMS are capable of satisfying the first component of reliability criterion, i. e., operating and producing data for 95 percent of the time. Sorbent traps are in the early pilot phase and are not yet proven of being capable of providing data 95 percent of the time. Although, the data on sorbent traps ( consistency throughout the report) that is 13 Introduction to Data Quality Indicators Course. EPA's Quality website.

( http:// www. epa. gov/ QUALITY/ trcourse. html# intro_ dqi) 20 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report available does suggest that they may be able to meet this criterion. This component of the reliability criterion is not applicable to the OH method, because it is an incidental short term verification method and does not operate year round. ( This is one reason the OH method is used as the reference method.) Fuel sampling is a year round method that is able to produce data 95 percent of the time on a yearly basis, due to its simplicity. It can be described as rugged, but as mentioned before, fuel sampling is a discontinuous method, so a comparison may be skewed.

Newly drafted quality reliability requirements for mercury CEMS need to take into account the specific requirements for routine maintenance. For example, wet based CEMS can produce waste streams of several liters per day that require handling, or the instruments may require routine biannual maintenance. Most dry CEMS manufacturers require minimal maintenance, such as changing the catalyst or the filter at varying intervals. These change outs depend on the flue gas being sampled and the conditions of the gas stream. The majority of dry based CEMS have minimal or no calibration requirements.

The second component of the reliability criterion, data must be valid 1 hour averages, can definitely be satisfied by CEMS. Most CEMS produce data every second, which can then be manipulated by the included software to generate the required valid one hour average. The OH method can provide valid 1 hour averages, but it is only for two or three hours at a time. In addition, this method is generally used for verification of the other AMS data. Sorbent traps sampling can produce 1 hour samples only in theory; when the sorbent traps are exchanged every hour on an around the clock basis. Fuel sampling can also in theory produce 1 hour samples. However, these must still be translated into verifiable mercury flue gas emissions.

Data collected by CEMS and the OH method are believed to be most representative of the actual dataset. It is expected that the same statement can be made for sorbent traps, once this technology matures, however, sorbent traps can only produce averaged data over a certain time frame and no " snap shot" data. Fuel sampling data are expected to be less representative of the true dataset, because the fuel sampling data need to be extrapolated to represent the actual mercury concentrations with the help of emission factors. At this time, reliable mercury emission factors for various coal burning and pollutant control scenarios still must be developed. 21 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report 2.3 Accessibility and Timeliness 2.3.1 Ontario Hydro Method The Ontario Hydro method is a method designated by ASTM D6784 02. The method involves isokinetic extraction of a sample from the flue gas through a probe and filter assembly. Particulate matter is removed from the sample with a filter. The sample is then passed through a series of seven impingers each filled with specific solutions. The different mercury species are recovered, combined and usually analyzed by CVAAS or CVAFS. Both CVAAS and CVAFS are sophisticated methods that are typically conducted by specialized laboratories off site, requiring the shipment of samples.

The OH method was not developed for permanent operation but is used as a reference method to verify the performance of other methods, such as CEMS. Because of the need to manually collect and handle individual samples, which are analyzed off site, the OH method is not continuous. The method states operation for at least two hours, but not more then three hours. In regard to the accessibility attribute under 40 CFR 75, the OH method can meet the requirements as they pertain to submittal of a monitoring plan and provision of test results. However, the requirements regarding timeliness can not easily be met, for practical reasons. In order to meet the timeliness requirements, on going sampling would have to occur on an hourly basis, while the samples would have to be analyzed and reported within 24 hours. Implementation of such a scenario does not appear to be likely.

2.3.2 CEMS Mercury CEMS are undergoing continuing development, with current technology being tested under various programs. Few, if any, commercial applications at coalfired power plants currently exist in the United States, but the technology is developing rapidly. CEMS provide quick real time mercury concentrations and many have inherent auto zeroing and system checks built into them.

Because CEMS are truly continuous, they meet the requirements for continuous emission monitors under 40 CFR 75 and can serve as the " base" system discussed in Section 1.1.

In regard to accessibility, CEMS and their ancillary data processing units are capable of providing full and unimpeded access to data records. Furthermore, the 22 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report requirements under 40 CFR( f) can be met, because this text was specifically written for continuous monitors. Specifically, all of the following criteria can be met.

Hourly average mercury concentration and mass emission rate

Hourly average mercury concentration and mass emission rate adjusted for bias if this adjustment is required

Percent mercury monitor data availability

Method of determination for hourly average mercury concentration

Hourly average volumetric flow rate

Hourly average volumetric flow rate adjusted for bias if this adjustment is required

Percent volumetric flow monitor data availability, method of determination for hourly average flow rate Mercury CEMS technology is developing rapidly. Improvements focus on, as previously stated, reduction of contaminants and on improved ruggedness and reliability of the instruments, as well as reduced maintenance. When the technology has become fully mature, CEMS are expected to be able to meet the specific requirements for timeliness in 40 CFR 75.

Thus, in the near future, CEMS are expected to be able to provide a continuous quality assured, permanent record of certified emissions data on an hourly basis and issue a record of data for the previous day within 24 hours. Currently, for most CEMS, data output is immediate and the accessibility and timeliness criterion are satisfied. Modern data processing technology is expected to allow for manipulation of the output in most desired formats in textual, tabular or graphic form.

2.3.3 Sorbent Trap Method The sorbent trap method is in the laboratory/ pilot phase and is being tested on a limited scale. The sorbent trap technique uses cylindrical tubes up to ½  inch diameter containing activated carbon impregnated with potassium iodide to adsorb mercury from flue gas. Once the sorbent trap method has reached commercial status, it should be applicable to capturing total mercury with close to 100 percent 23 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report efficiency from coal fired stationary sources. The method takes a continuous, cumulative sample over a given time period that can range from one hour to one week and possibly up to a month. After this time period the sorbent trap is exchanged for a fresh one, and the used sorbent trap is sent to an off site laboratory to be analyzed according to standard methods. Currently, only one laboratory in the nation is commercially conducting sorbent trap analysis for Hg determination for coal fired flue gas streams.

The sorbent trap method is not a monitoring method but a method that takes physical samples over a certain time period, which have to be analyzed off site. Although the sorbent trap sampling method is described as continuous, it only provides one cumulative sample over the sampling period. If this sampling period is set for one hour, this method could, in theory, provide hourly average samples as required under 40 CFR 75( f). At this point, sampling sorbent trap removal and placement is a manual task, as is preparation for shipment. The hourly frequency of sampling may not be practical for coal fired power plants.

In addition, the samples need to be shipped off site for analysis. The timeliness requirements under 40 CFR 75 include that a record of data from the previous day must be available within 24 hours. It is unlikely that these conditions can be met under the current arrangement while an off site laboratory has to analyze the sorbent traps.

For the sorbent trap method to become an acceptable alternate monitoring system under the 40 CFR 75 accessibility and timeliness criteria, the sorbent trap replacement would have to occur hourly and would have to be automated, with analysis occurring on site with data reporting within 24 hours.

2.3.4 Fuel Sampling Fuel sampling will determine the total amount of mercury in the coal. When the coal is burned, the mercury in the coal will be converted to elemental, oxidized, and particle bound mercury. Though the fuel sampling is most directly related to total mercury emissions, it may be possible to estimate the partitioning of the mercury based on other fuel components and fuel firing conditions. Emission factors could be developed which would be based on unit specific emission measurements or on average emission measurements for a defined class of technology employed.

In general and in practice, fuel sampling can either be conventional or on line ( automatic) for certain chemicals or constituents. On line analysis is a continuous 24 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report series of rapid operations, where the product is conditioned for analysis and subsequently analyzed. At this point, on line analysis technology for mercury from solid samples is not yet commercially available, thus, mercury sampling by means of fuel analysis constitutes conventional analysis.

Conventional analysis is essentially a series of batch operations that entail the incremental removal of a specified series of relatively small quantities of coal from the process stream. Sample preparation covers a set of conditioning procedures such as drying, mixing, crushing, reducing and dividing, so the series of samples is transformed into a test sample that is appropriate for subsequent analytical procedures. Mercury is typically determined with the flameless atomic absorption spectroscopy the method where the powdered coal is first digested with oxidizing acids. AAS is usually conducted in specialized laboratories, implying that the samples will have to be shipped and that results are available some time after sampling and shipment.

As with sorbent traps, fuel sampling is not a monitoring method, it is a sampling method. Because, the 40 CFR 75( f), requires a " monitoring plan" the accessibility criterion can not be met with the current format of the text. The requirements for the monitoring plan have been summarized in Section 1.2.5 and include descriptions of the monitor site location, monitoring components, data acquisition and handling system.

In addition, the fuel sampling method does not sample the flue gas and hence, deliver an emission rate; it samples the coal before it is combusted. As stated before, the mercury content of the coal samples can either be used to quantify the upper boundary of mercury emissions, or it can be combined with an emission factor to establish an emissions estimate. In either case, the samples are taken before the flue gas is produced and need to be correlated to the mercury quantities in the actual flue gas. In addition the samples will have to be sent off site for analysis, unless the plant is furnished with an AAS laboratory.

The 40 CFR 75( f) timeliness criterion requires that hourly averages for the mercury in the flue gas are recorded, which are available within 24 hours, while adhering to specified QA requirements. Under the current fuel sampling procedures and analysis, this criterion can not be met.

For the fuel sampling method to become acceptable under the 40 CFR 75 accessibility and timeliness criteria, it would have to evolve into a true monitoring method, with automated, on line sampling and analysis. In addition, the correlation 25 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report of the mercury in coal samples with the actual emissions will have to be established through the development of verifiable emission factors. This could prove complicated at best because of the variability of pollution control technology performance and the combinations of control technology at various coal fired plants.

2.4 Missing Data Substitution Missing data substitution criteria procedures are included in Subpart D to 40 CFR 75 and are summarized below. The procedures are summarized and the implications for the different monitoring methods under review are briefly discussed.

When the unit has a certified redundant backup CEMS, a like kind replacement non redundant backup analyzer, or a backup reference method monitoring system, data generated by such a system can be used ( par. 75.30). When prior quality assured data exist, these can be used as substitutes in certain cases which are identified in par. 75.31. When no prior quality assured data exist, the maximum potential pollutant concentration must be used. This parameter is described in Appendix A, <IP_ADDRESS>. to 40 CFR 75, and it is based on fuel analysis.

An important part of the missing data substitution procedure is the calculation of percent monitor data availability ( par. 75.32). This parameter is used to determine what method should be used for missing data substitution, together with the duration of the CEMS outage. ( See Table 1 in par. 75.33 for SO2, which was used as a surrogate for mercury). The higher the availability and the shorter the outage for the CEMS, the data substitution procedure becomes more lenient and simpler. For example, when data availability is high (> 95 percent) and the duration of the outing is short (< 24 hours), it suffices to take the average of the average of the hour before and the average of the hour after the outage. On the other hand, when data availability drops below 80 percent, the maximum potential pollutant concentration must be used.

Subpart D of 40 CFR 75 was clearly drafted with CEMS as the standard method. At this point, only the Ontario Hydro method can provide hourly certified data and this method could be used as a certified backup analyzer for short periods of time. As indicated, fuel analysis is incorporated into the method to calculate maximum potential pollutant concentrations. It appears that this would rule out the use of fuel analysis as primary data collection method. Because the missing data procedure 26 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report uses average hourly data, sorbent trap data can potentially be used as backup data, provided that the method becomes certified and is able to generate hourly data.

2.5 Qualitative Comparison of CEMS and Sorbent Traps Given the variability in the type, operation and fuel mix of sources in the proposed Hg cap and trade program, EPA believes that emissions must be monitored continuously in order to ensure the precision, reliability, accuracy, and timeliness of emissions data that support the cap and trade program. This implies that CEMS and sorbent trap monitoring systems are the most appropriate systems. EPA is considering two alternative approaches for the continuous monitoring of Hg emissions. Alternative 1 represents EPA's traditional approach to implementing an emissions trading program, and Alternative 2 is a variation of Alternative 1.

In Alternative 1, most sources would be required to use continuous emission monitoring systems ( CEMS), while low emitting sources with Hg emissions at or below a specified threshold value would be allowed to use sorbent trap monitoring systems. As of March 2004, the proposed threshold value is 9 lbs ( 144 ounces) of mercury emissions per year, although EPA is accepting comment on three additional alternative thresholds of 29, 46 and 76 lbs/ yr.

In Alternative 2, all sources would be allowed to use either CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring systems. But those sources choosing the sorbent trap monitoring system, whose Hg emissions are above the specified emission threshold would be required to implement quarterly relative accuracy audits ( RAAs) so that the qualityassurance ( QA) procedures are comparable to those for a CEMS. However, the exact QA procedures are still being be defined.

The use of sorbent trap monitoring systems as an alternative to CEMS for monitoring Hg emissions has been the subject of recent field studies, and has been proposed by EPA as an alternative to CEMS for determining compliance with the Hg MACT standard which is the subject of EPA's December 15, 2003, proposed rulemaking. Since these studies have indicated that sorbent trap monitoring systems are capable of providing accurate measurements of Hg concentration, EPA is also proposing to allow the use of sorbent trap monitoring systems for the Hg trading program within limitations. These limitations are based on EPA's concerns that sorbent trap monitoring systems cannot be subjected to the same level of quality assurance and quality control as traditional CEMS for long term use in monitoring Hg emissions. Insufficient quality assurance of the emissions data inspires a lack of confidence in the commodity being traded, i. e. the emission allowances. 27 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report Furthermore, this would be inconsistent with the monitoring requirements of EPA's two existing successful emissions cap and trade programs, the Acid Rain program and the NOx Budget Trading program.

Congress required quality assurance for CEMS or alternative monitoring systems used in the Acid Rain program. EPA requires the CEMS to undergo rigorous initial certification testing and periodic quality assurance testing, including daily calibrations, quarterly linearity checks, and annual or semi annual RATAs. A standard set of data validation rules and substitute data procedures apply to all of the CEMS. These stringent requirements provide an accurate hourly accounting of the mass emissions from each affected source, and provide prompt feedback if the monitoring system is operating incorrectly. This ensures a level playing field among the regulated sources with accurate accounting for every ton of emissions, which inspires confidence in the trading of allowances.

Although EPA is proposing initial certification testing and periodic quality assurance testing for a sorbent trap monitoring system, these proposed requirements do not provide the same frequency of quality assurance testing as for a CEMS. Daily calibrations and quarterly linearity checks, or their equivalents, cannot be performed on a sorbent trap monitoring system. EPA solicits comment as to whether other daily, monthly, or quarterly quality assurance test approaches have been developed which parallel those required for CEMS. To address this difference in quality assurance testing between the sorbent trap monitoring system and the CEMS, EPA is proposing additional quarterly RAAs for those sources above the specified emissions threshold who would elect to use sorbent trap monitoring systems under the second alternative approach.

This requirement for more frequent quality assurance testing reflects the difference in the purposes of monitoring for an emissions trading program compared to monitoring for an emissions limitation program such as a MACT standard. Monitoring for the trading program requires frequent, periodic testing to ensure continued accuracy of the measurement method, to accurately account for all emissions since each unit of emissions is tied to an allowance which is tradeable at any time throughout the year. It is important for source owners to know how much " money is in the bank" at any given time. This necessity was recognized by Congress when it required the use of CEMS in the Acid Rain Program, which serves as the model for both the NOx Budget Trading program and the proposed Hg trading program. 28 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report 3. Summary This report evaluates and compares the various Hg emission monitoring methods in light of potential qualitative performance in a Hg emissions quantification program such as a market based cap and trade program. The monitoring methods are evaluated on the basis of the attributes defined in 40 CFR 75, which include precision, reliability, accessibility, and timeliness. The 40 CFR 75 pertains to the pollutants SO2 and NOX ( as well as CO2, opacity and volumetric flow) but it does not address mercury. However, this report uses these attributes and applies them to mercury for consistency.

3.1 Precision In 40 CFR 75.41( a), precision is expressed as including an F test, a correlation analysis, and a t test to address bias. The F test is a comparison of the variance of emissions determined with the standard monitoring system and the variance of the alternative monitoring system. The correlation test provides a comparison of the responses of standard and alternate monitoring systems for linearity. The t test compares the average response of the standard and alternate monitoring system to ensure they are not significantly different.

Fuel sampling is likely to fail in many instances because mercury control in the process equipment is not likely to be linearly related to input in all situations. Ultimately, fuel sampling ( like CEMS or sorbent traps) could be challenged with a correlation test. There does not appear to be provisions for correcting statistically significant bias in the proposed regulation but this could be incorporated. With the development of standard gases for elemental and oxidized mercury, continued operation of the Hg CEMS could be validated daily in the same manner as Part 75 CEMS. Development of both an unbiased fuel mercury analysis technique and an accurate predictive model of process performance relative to mercury emissions are necessary to provide an independent validation of fuel sampling based emissions.

3.2 Reliability Reliability should be demonstrated by showing that the monitoring method is capable of providing valid 1 hour averages for 95.0 percent or more of the unit operating hours over a one year period and that the system meets the applicable QAQC requirements of 40 CFR 75, Appendix B. 29 Feasibility Analysis of Mercury Monitoring Techniques Draft Report CEMS are rapidly developing and some commercially available CEMS are capable of operating and producing data for 95 percent of the time. Sorbent traps are in the early pilot phase and are not yet proven capable of providing data 95 percent of the time, although, the data on sorbent traps that is available does suggest that they may be able to meet this criterion. The OH method is an incidental short term verification method and does not operate year round.

The second component of the reliability criterion, data must be valid 1 hour averages, can definitely be satisfied by CEMS. Most CEMS produce data every second, which can then be manipulated by the included software to generate the required valid one hour average. The OH method can provide valid 1 hour averages, but it is only for two or three hours at a time. Sorbent traps sampling can produce 1 hour samples only in theory; when the sorbent traps are exchanged every hour on an around the clock basis. Fuel sampling can also in theory produce one hour samples. However, these must still be translated into verifiable mercury flue gas emissions.

3.3 Accessibility and timeliness Accessibility can be interpreted as the capability of the monitoring system to provide unimpeded access to data records. Similarly, timeliness requires that a continuous quality assured, permanent record of certified emissions data on an hourly basis is provided within 24 hours.

Currently, for most CEMS, data output is immediate and the accessibility and timeliness criteria can be satisfied. Modern data processing technology is expected to allow for manipulation of the output in most desired formats in textual, tabular or graphic form.

At this point, sampling sorbent trap removal and placement is a manual task, as is preparation for shipment and the hourly frequency of sampling may not be practical for coal fired power plants. The timeliness criterion includes that a record of data from the previous day must be available within 24 hours. It is unlikely that these conditions can be met under the current arrangement while an off site laboratory has to analyze the sorbent traps. Under the current fuel sampling and analysis procedures, the timeliness criterion cannot likely be met, because hourly average data can not likely be available within 24 hours.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 212 (Thursday, November 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66337-66339]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23870]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96176; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2022-057]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Listing Rule 5732 To
Provide Listing Standards for Contingent Value Rights on Nasdaq Global
Market

October 28, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 17, 2022, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt Listing Rule 5732 to provide listing
standards for Contingent Value Rights on Nasdaq Global Market.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq proposes to adopt Listing Rule 5732 to provide listing
standards for Price-Based and Event-Based Contingent Value Rights (each
a ``CVR'' and collectively, ``CVRs'') on Nasdaq Global Market, which
are unsecured obligations of the issuer providing for a possible cash
payment at maturity.\3\ The Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change will increase competition by providing an additional listing
venue for CVRs, which can currently be listed on other securities
exchanges. CVRs are often used to bridge valuation gaps relating to
uncertain future events that may influence the value of a target
company and, more generally, may be employed to aid in the completion
of deals by helping to solve certain of the valuation and closing
challenges that the parties encounter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The proposed rule change is based on Section 703.18 of the
NYSE Listed Company Manual, related to initial listing of CVRs, and
the provisions of Section 802.01D applicable to ``Specialized
Securities'', related to continued listing of CVRs. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 26072 (May 30, 1990), 55 FR 23166 (June 6,
1990) (SR-NYSE-90-15) (adopting NYSE rules related to Price-Based
CVRs); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86651 (August 13, 2019),
84 FR 42967 (August 19, 2019) (SR-NYSE-2019-14) (adopting NYSE rules
related to Event-Based CVRs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the cash payment at maturity for a CVR can be based
upon the price performance of an affiliate's equity security (a
``Price-Based CVR'') or upon the occurrence of a specified event or
events related to the business of the issuer or an affiliate of the
issuer (an ``Event-Based CVR''). At maturity, the holder of a Price-
Based CVR is entitled to a cash payment if the average market price of
the related equity security is less than a pre-set target price. The
target price is established at the time the Price-Based CVR is issued.
Conversely, should the average market price of the related equity
security equal or exceed the target price, the Price-Based CVR would
expire worthless. Price-Based CVRs are generally distributed to
shareholders of an acquired company who are receiving shares of the
acquirer as acquisition consideration. The Price-Based CVRs provide the
acquiree's shareholders with some medium-term protection against poor
stock price performance of the shares of the acquirer by guaranteeing
them a specified cash payment if the acquirer's average stock price is
below a specified level at the time of maturity of the Price-Based CVR.
    Event-Based CVRs are also typically issued to the shareholders of
an acquired entity as consideration in an acquisition transaction.
Event-Based CVRs entitle their holders to receive a specified cash
payment upon the occurrence of a specified event or events related to
the business of the issuer or an affiliate of the issuer prior to the
maturity date of the Event-Based CVR. The Event-Based CVR provides the
shareholders of the acquiree an additional interest in the medium-term
performance of the merged entity upon occurrence of its specified
event(s). An example of a typical Event-Based CVR occurs in mergers of
life sciences companies, when the CVR payment is triggered by the
receipt of FDA approval of a new drug application. Another example of
an Event-Based CVR is a CVR issued in connection with a merger whose
payment triggering event is the achievement of a specified level of
financial performance by the combined entity or by a division of the
combined entity representing the assets from the acquired company.
Event-Based CVRs, which are transferrable, have become increasingly
common in recent years, especially in connection with mergers of life
sciences companies.
    For initial listing on the Nasdaq Global Market, the issuer must
have assets in excess of $100 million, satisfy the requirement of
Nasdaq Rule 5315(f)(3)(A) \4\ or have at least $200 million in global
market capitalization and satisfy the requirement of Rule

5315(f)(2)(A) and (B) \5\ related to Market Value of Unrestricted
Publicly Held Shares. In order to list a CVR, an issuer of the CVR must
not be considered non-compliant with the listing standards of the
national securities exchange where either the equity security to whose
price performance a Price-Based CVR, or in an Event-Based CVR, where
the primary equity security is linked or the issuer's common stock is
listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Specifically, to satisfy Nasdaq Rule 5315(f)(3)(A) a
Company, other than a closed end management investment company, must
aggregate income from continuing operations before income taxes of
at least $11 million over the prior three fiscal years, (ii)
positive income from continuing operations before income taxes in
each of the prior three fiscal years, and (iii) at least $2.2
million income from continuing operations before income taxes in
each of the two most recent fiscal years.
    \5\ See Nasdaq Rule 5315(f)(2)(A) and (B) requiring (i) a Market
Value of at least $110 million; or (ii) a Market Value of at least
$100 million, if the Company has stockholders' equity of at least
$110 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, the CVR issue must have a minimum of 400 holders; a minimum
of 1 million CVRs outstanding; a minimum of $4 million market value; a
minimum life of one year; and a minimum $4.00 bid price. While these
distribution and liquidity standards applicable to CVRs can help to
ensure there should be adequate depth, liquidity, and investor interest
to support an exchange listing, the issuer requirements will provide
some minimum level of indicia that the issuer of a CVR should be able
to meet any future payment obligations to shareholders of Event-Based,
as well as Price-Based, CVRs pursuant to the applicable CVR agreement.
    Prior to listing a CVR under the proposed rule, Nasdaq would issue
a circular as described in proposed Nasdaq Rule 5732(c) reminding its
members that because CVRs have certain unique characteristics investors
should be afforded an explanation of such special characteristics and
risks attendant to trading thereof, as well as the Exchange's know-
your-customer, suitability, and other rules applicable thereto. Nasdaq
will suggest to its members that transactions in CVRs be recommended
only to investors whose accounts have been approved for options trading
or whom the member firm has otherwise ascertained that CVRs are
suitable for. Like other financial products with unique features
trading on the Exchange, CVRs combine features of debt, equity, and
securities derivative instruments. Consequently, this product may be
more complex than straight stock, bond, or equity warrants. The
Exchange believes distribution of this information circular will help
to alert members to the special disclosure and suitability obligations
that apply to CVRs and that are relevant in making recommendations for
investors to purchase such securities.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In particular, the circular states, among other things, that
it is suggested that transactions in CVRs be recommended only to
investors whose accounts have been approved for options trading and
that members making recommendations in CVRs should make a
determination that the customer has such knowledge and experience in
financial matters that the customer may reasonably be expected to be
capable of evaluating the risks and special characteristics, and is
financially able to bear the risks, of a recommendation to invest in
CVRs. Nasdaq believes these requirements, among others set forth in
the circular, should help to ensure that members recommend
transactions only to those customers with an understanding of the
risks attendant to the trading of CVRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While listed, the issuer of an Event-Based CVR will be required to
make public disclosure: (i) upon the occurrence of any event that must
occur as a condition to the issuer's obligation to make a cash payment
with respect to the CVR (or if such an event is deemed to have occurred
pursuant to the terms of the documents governing the CVR); or (ii) at
any such time as it becomes clear that a condition to the cash payment
with respect to the CVR has not been met as required by the documents
governing the terms of the CVR.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ IM-5250-1. Disclosure of Material Information, among other
things, requires Nasdaq companies to notify Nasdaq's MarketWatch
Department prior to the distribution of certain material news at
least ten minutes prior to public announcement of the news when the
public release of the information is made from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. ET. Trading halts are instituted, among other reasons, to
ensure that material information is fairly and adequately
disseminated to the investing public and the marketplace, and to
provide investors with the opportunity to evaluate the information
in making investment decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq will delist a CVR pursuant to the provisions of the Listing
Rule 5800 Series if the CVR fails to maintain any of the following: (1)
at least 100,000 Publicly Held Shares; (2) at least 100 Holders; or (3)
at least $1 million Market Value of Listed Securities. In addition,
Nasdaq would delist the CVR if either the equity security to whose
price performance a Price-Based CVR is linked or the issuer's common
stock does not remain listed. Also, Nasdaq would delist an Event-Based
CVR once the occurrence of the specified event or events related to the
business of the issuer or an affiliate of the issuer has occurred or
once it goes beyond the time that the specified event or events should
have occurred.
    The Exchange will rely on its existing trading surveillances,
administered by the Exchange, or the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (``FINRA'') on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to
detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities
laws. The Exchange will monitor activity in CVRs to identify and deter
any potential improper trading activity in such securities and monitor
CVRs alongside the common equity securities of the issuer or its
affiliates, as applicable. In addition, the Exchange will adopt
enhanced surveillance procedures if necessary. Since news and
information concerning a company and its primary equity security or
common stock can have an impact on a company's Event-Based CVRs and
Price-Based CVRs, the surveillance should help to monitor the trading
activity in the Event-Based CVRs and Price-Based CVRs. In addition, if
the underlying security is listed and traded on another U.S. national
securities exchange, Nasdaq will communicate as needed and may obtain
information regarding trading from markets and other entities that are
members of ISG.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For a list of the current members of ISG, see
www.isgportal.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal to permit the listing of CVRs under proposed Listing
Rule 5732 is designed to protect investors and the public interest. The
purpose of the proposed rule change is to provide a transparent
regulated market for the trading of those securities. The listing of
Price-Based CVRs has been permitted under Section 703.18 of the New
York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') Listed Company Manual (``Section
703.18'') for many years, and several years ago NYSE also amended
Section 703.18 to accommodate Event-Based CVRs.\11\ The Exchange notes
that, with the exception of the payment triggering event, Event-Based
CVRs are identical in structure to Price-Based CVRs. Listed companies
have been issuing transferable Event-Based CVRs as acquisition
consideration for a number of years.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26072 (May 30,
1990), 55 FR 23166 (June 6, 1990) (SR-NYSE-90-15) (adopting NYSE
rules related to Price-Based CVRs); Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 86651 (August 13, 2019), 84 FR 42967 (August 19, 2019) (SR-NYSE-
2019-14) (adopting NYSE rules related to Event-Based CVRs).
    \12\ See, for example, CVRs listed by Sanofi (cash payment tied
to achieving sales targets of certain drugs) and Wright Medical
Group N.V. (cash payment tied to FDA approval of a certain drug and
achieving revenue milestones), which were both listed on the
Exchange under current Rule 5730. No similar CVRs are currently
listed at the time of this filing.

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

    The Exchange will distribute a circular as described in proposed
Listing Rule 5732(c) prior to the commencement of trading of any CVR
reminding its members that because CVRs have certain unique
characteristics investors should be afforded an explanation of such
special characteristics and risks attendant to trading thereof, as well
as the Exchange's know-your-customer, suitability, and other rules
applicable thereto. The Exchange believes that the distribution of this
circular will help address concerns, among others, that the complexity
of a CVR could lead to investor confusion and create certain risks. In
addition, the Exchange will monitor activity in CVRs, to identify and
deter any potential improper trading activity in such securities and
monitor CVRs together with the common equity securities of the issuer
or its affiliates, as applicable. The Exchange also will adopt enhanced
surveillance procedures if necessary. The Exchange believes these
measures will reduce the risks of manipulative or other improper
activity in connection with CVRs.
    Proposed Listing Rule 5732 is designed to protect investors and the
public interest, as it requires that only larger, well capitalized
companies can list CVRs. The issuer requirements under proposed Listing
Rule 5732 are those applied to the initial listing of common stocks of
operating companies on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, and, as such,
the Exchange believes that they are sufficiently rigorous to be used in
connection with the listing of CVRs on Nasdaq Global Market. The
Exchange further believes that issuers that meet the Global Select
Market issuer qualification requirements are likely to be substantial
companies capable of meeting their financial obligations under the
terms of a listed CVR. The Exchange also notes that it will require
issuers of listed CVRs to have at least $100 million in total assets at
the time of original listing.
    Nasdaq will delist a CVR pursuant to the provisions of the Listing
Rule 5800 Series if the CVR fails to maintain any of the following,
which are set forth in the continued listing requirements of Listing
Rule 5732(d): (1) at least 100,000 Publicly Held Shares; (2) at least
100 Holders; or (3) at least $1 million Market Value of Listed
Securities. In addition, Nasdaq would delist the CVR if either the
equity security to whose price performance a Price-Based CVR is linked
or the issuer's common stock does not remain listed. Also, Nasdaq would
delist an Event-Based CVR once the occurrence of the specified event or
events related to the business of the issuer or an affiliate of the
issuer has occurred or once it goes beyond the time that the specified
event or events should have occurred. This is designed to protect
investors and the public interest, as it ensures that issuers whose
CVRs are listed on the Exchange will meet the qualitative and
quantitative standards for listing on a national securities exchange on
a continuous basis.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will
increase competition by providing an additional listing venue for CVRs,
which can currently be listed on other securities exchanges and does
not impose any burden on competition.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2022-057 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2022-057. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2022-057, and should be submitted
on or before November 25, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-23870 Filed 11-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


corrosion on significant surfaces except for permissible ferrous
corrosion, as defined in Sec.  571.209, at peripheral surface edges or
edges of holes on under-floor reinforcing plates and washers after
being subjected to the conditions specified in S7.3. Alternatively,
such hardware must be made from corrosion-resistant steel containing at
least 11.5 percent chromium per Sec.  571.209, S5.2(a) or must be
protected against corrosion by an electrodeposited coating of nickel,
or copper and nickel with at least a service condition number of SC2,
and other attachment hardware must be protected by an electrodeposited
coating of nickel, or copper and nickel with a service condition number
of SC1, in accordance with ASTM B456-95 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec.  571.5), but such hardware may not be racked for electroplating in
locations subjected to maximum stress. The manufacturer shall select
the option by the time it certifies the lift and may not thereafter
select a different option for the lift. The lift must be accompanied by
all attachment hardware necessary for its installation on a vehicle.
* * * * *
    S7.2.2 Use the test procedure defined in ANSI/RESNA Standard WC/
Vol. 1-1998, Section 13 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  571.5),
except for clauses 5.3, Force Gage and 6, Test Procedure, on the wet
section of platform. In lieu of clauses 5.3 and 6, implement the
requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS> and S<IP_ADDRESS>.
* * * * *
    S7.3.2 Attachment hardware, as specified in S6.3.1, and externally
mounted platform lifts or components, as specified in S6.3.2, are
tested in accordance with ASTM B117-97 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec.  571.5). Any surface coating or material not intended for
permanent retention on the metal parts during service life are removed
prior to testing. Except as specified in S7.3.3, the period of the test
is 50 hours, consisting of two periods of 24 hours exposure to salt
spray followed by one hour drying.
* * * * *

    Issued: December 22, 2011.
Daniel C. Smith,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 2011-33682 Filed 1-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23556-23557]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10685]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP19-839-001.
    Applicants: Vector Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Compliance filing NAESB 3.1 Supplement to Compliance
Filing to be effective 8/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/13/19.
    Accession Number: 20190513-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/28/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1221-000.
    Applicants: White River Hub, LLC.
    Description: Annual Fuel Gas Reimbursement Percentage Report of
White River Hub, LLC under RP19-1221.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5183.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/28/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1222-000.
    Applicants: Apache Corporation,Presidio Investment Holdings LLC.
    Description: Joint Petition for Temporary Waiver of Commission
Policies, Capacity Release Regulations, et al. of Apache Corporation,
et al. under RP19-1222.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5234.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1223-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Penalty Charge Reconciliation Filing of Rockies
Express Pipeline LLC under RP19-1223.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5260.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/28/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/

docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866)
208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 16, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-10685 Filed 5-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P