Article 69U.K.Reporting on improvements to the monitoring methodology
1.Each operator or aircraft operator shall regularly check whether the monitoring methodology applied can be improved.
An operator of an installation shall submit to the competent authority for approval a report containing the information referred to in paragraph 2 or 3, where appropriate, by the following deadlines:
(a)for a category A installation, by 30 June every four years;
(b)for a category B installation, by 30 June every two years;
(c)for a category C installation, by 30 June every year.
However, the competent authority may set an alternative date for submission of the report, but no later date than 30 September of the same year.
By way of derogation from the second and third subparagraphs, and without prejudice to the first subparagraph, the competent authority may approve, together with the monitoring plan or the improvement report, an extension of the deadline applicable pursuant to the second subparagraph, if the operator provides evidence to the satisfaction of the competent authority upon submission of a monitoring plan in accordance with Article 12 or upon notification of updates in accordance with Article 15, or upon submission of an improvement report in accordance with this Article, that the reasons for unreasonable costs or for improvement measures being technically not feasible will remain valid for a longer period of time. That extension shall take into account the number of years for which the operator provides evidence. The total time period between improvement reports shall not exceed three years for a category C installation, four years for a category B installation or five years for a category A installation.
2.Where the operator does not apply at least the tiers required pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 26(1) to major source streams and minor source streams and pursuant to Article 41 to emission sources, the operator shall provide a justification as to why it is technically not feasible or would incur unreasonable costs to apply the required tiers.
However, where evidence is found that measures needed for reaching those tiers have become technically feasible and do not any more incur unreasonable costs, the operator shall notify the competent authority of appropriate modifications of the monitoring plan in accordance with Article 15, and submit proposals for implementing the related measures and its timing.
3.Where the operator applies a fall-back monitoring methodology referred to in Article 22, the operator shall provide: a justification as to why it is technically not feasible or would incur unreasonable costs to apply at least tier 1 for one or more major or minor source streams.
However, where evidence is found that measures needed for reaching at least tier 1 for those source streams have become technically feasible and do not any more incur unreasonable costs, the operator shall notify the competent authority of appropriate modifications of the monitoring plan in accordance with Article 15 and submit proposals for implementing the related measures and its timing.
4.Where the verification report established in accordance with Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2067 states outstanding non-conformities or recommendations for improvements, in accordance with Articles 27, 29 and 30 of that Implementing Regulation, the operator or aircraft operator shall submit to the competent authority for approval a report by 30 June of the year in which that verification report is issued by the verifier. That report shall describe how and when the operator or aircraft operator has rectified or plans to rectify the non-conformities identified by the verifier and to implement recommended improvements.
The competent authority may set an alternative date for submission of the report as referred to in this paragraph, but no later date than 30 September of the same year. Where applicable, such report may be combined with the report referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.
Where recommended improvements would not lead to an improvement of the monitoring methodology, the operator or aircraft operator shall provide a justification of why that is the case. Where the recommended improvements would incur unreasonable costs, the operator or aircraft operator shall provide evidence of the unreasonable nature of the costs.
5.Paragraph 4 of this Article shall not apply where the operator or aircraft operator has already resolved all non-conformities and recommendations for improvement and has submitted related modifications of the monitoring plan to the competent authority for approval in accordance with Article 15 of this Regulation before the date set pursuant to paragraph 4.