[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 46 (Monday, March 9, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13524-13546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02714]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0688; FRL-10005-14-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT00


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Stationary Combustion Turbines Residual Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
(RTR) conducted for the Stationary Combustion Turbines source category 
regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we are taking final action addressing 
requirements during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) 
and to add electronic reporting requirements. The EPA is finalizing our 
proposed determination that the risks from this source category due to 
emissions of air toxics are acceptable and that the existing NESHAP 
provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. The EPA is 
also finalizing our proposed determination that we identified no new 
cost-effective controls under the technology review that would achieve 
further emissions reductions from the source category.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 9, 2020. The incorporation 
by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule is 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 9, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0688. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not 
publicly available, e.g., confidential business information or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically through 
https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, 
WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. 
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and 
the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Melanie King, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-2469; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email 
address: king.melanie@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the 
risk modeling methodology, contact Mark Morris, Health and 
Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5416; 
and email address: morris.mark@epa.gov. For information about the 
applicability of the Stationary Combustion Turbines NESHAP to a 
particular entity, contact Sara Ayres, Office of Enforcement and 
Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard (Mail Code E-19J), Chicago, Illinois 60604; telephone 
number: (312) 353-6266; and email address: ayres.sara@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and 
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease 
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA 
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
BACT best available control technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CAER Combined Air Emissions Reporting
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emissions monitoring systems
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMS continuous monitoring system
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FTIR Fourier transform infrared
HAP hazardous air pollutants(s)
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference
km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emission rate
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NOx oxides of nitrogen
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
O2 oxygen
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutant known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
ppbvd parts per billion by volume, dry basis
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PTC performance test code
RACT reasonably available control technology

[[Page 13525]]

RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
REL recommended exposure limit
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SCR selective catalytic reduction
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S. United States
U.S.C. United States Code
v. versus
VCS voluntary consensus standard
XML extensible markup language

    Background information. On April 12, 2019, the EPA proposed the RTR 
for the Stationary Combustion Turbines NESHAP as well as amendments 
addressing periods of SSM and requiring electronic reporting. In this 
action, we are finalizing certain decisions and revisions for the rule. 
We summarize some of the more significant comments we timely received 
regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble. 
A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA's 
responses to those comments is available in the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Stationary Combustion 
Turbines (40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYY), Residual Risk and Technology 
Review, Final Amendments, Summary of Public Comments and Responses on 
Proposed Rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0688. A ``track changes'' 
version of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in 
this action is available in the docket.
    At this time, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed removal of the 
administrative stay of the effectiveness of the standards for new lean 
premix and diffusion flame gas-fired turbines to allow for additional 
time to review the public comments on the proposed removal of the stay, 
as well as a petition to delist the Stationary Combustion Turbines 
source category that was filed in August 2019. This final rule does not 
include responses to comments on lifting the stay. The EPA is still 
reviewing the comments on lifting the stay and will respond to them in 
any subsequent action.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the Stationary Combustion Turbines source category 
and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source 
category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the Stationary Combustion 
Turbines source category in our April 12, 2019, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review 
for the Stationary Combustion Turbines source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
review for the Stationary Combustion Turbines source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions 
during periods of SSM?
    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Stationary Combustion Turbines source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the Stationary Combustion Turbines 
Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the Stationary Combustion Turbines 
Source Category
    C. SSM for the Stationary Combustion Turbines Source Category
    D. Electronic Reporting Requirements for the Stationary 
Combustion Turbines Source Category
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we 
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR Part 51
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       NESHAP and source category                 NAICS \1\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Combustion Turbines.........  2211, 486210, 211111, 211113,
                                          221.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To 
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the 
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, 
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this 
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/stationary-combustion-turbines-national-emission-standards. Following 
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal

[[Page 13526]]

Register version and key technical documents at this same website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information 
includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites 
for the RTR source categories.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of the 
final actions is available only by filing a petition for review in the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the court) by May 8, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to 
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person 
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public 
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for 
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and 
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. 
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a 
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 
EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate 
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary 
sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources 
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then 
promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' 
are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a 
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly 
referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards 
and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP 
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT 
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the 
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques, 
including, but not limited to those that reduce the volume of or 
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of 
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to 
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from 
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, 
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination 
of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor 
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See 
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can 
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 
standards, we must also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish 
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of 
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the 
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the 
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology 
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them 
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk 
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after 
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, 
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The 
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of 
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In 
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the 
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to 
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority 
for this rule, see 84 FR 15046.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA 
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based 
standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is 
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk 
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the Stationary Combustion Turbines source category and how 
does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?

    The EPA promulgated the Stationary Combustion Turbines NESHAP on 
March 5, 2004 (69 FR 10512). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 
63, subpart YYYY, and apply to stationary combustion turbines at major 
sources of HAP. The stationary combustion turbine industry consists of 
facilities that own and operate stationary combustion turbines. The 
source category covered by this MACT standard currently includes 243 
facilities. Stationary combustion turbines are typically located at 
power plants, compressor stations, landfills and industrial facilities 
such as chemical plants.
    Stationary combustion turbines have been divided into the following 
eight subcategories: (1) Emergency stationary combustion turbines, (2) 
stationary combustion turbines which burn landfill or digester gas 
equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross heat input on an annual 
basis or where gasified municipal solid waste is used to generate 10 
percent or more of the gross heat input to the stationary combustion 
turbine on an annual basis, (3) stationary combustion turbines of less 
than 1 megawatt rated peak power output, (4) stationary lean premix 
combustion turbines when firing gas

[[Page 13527]]

and when firing oil at sites where all turbines fire oil no more than 
an aggregate total of 1,000 hours annually (also referred to herein as 
``lean premix gas-fired turbines''), (5) stationary lean premix 
combustion turbines when firing oil at sites where all turbines fire 
oil more than an aggregate total of 1,000 hours annually (also referred 
to herein as ``lean premix oil-fired turbines''), (6) stationary 
diffusion flame combustion turbines when firing gas and when firing oil 
at sites where all turbines fire oil no more than an aggregate total of 
1,000 hours annually (also referred to herein as ``diffusion flame gas-
fired turbines''), (7) stationary diffusion flame combustion turbines 
when firing oil at sites where all turbines fire oil more than an 
aggregate total of 1,000 hours annually (also referred to herein as 
``diffusion flame oil-fired turbines''), and (8) stationary combustion 
turbines operated on the North Slope of Alaska (defined as the area 
north of the Arctic Circle (latitude 66.5 degrees North)).
    The sources of emissions are the exhaust gases from combustion of 
gaseous and liquid fuels in a stationary combustion turbine. The HAP 
that are present in the exhaust gases from stationary combustion 
turbines include formaldehyde, toluene, benzene, and acetaldehyde. 
Metallic HAP are present in the exhaust from distillate oil-fired 
turbines; these metallic HAP are generally carried over from the fuel 
constituents.
    The NESHAP requires new or reconstructed stationary combustion 
turbines in the lean premix gas-fired, lean premix oil-fired, diffusion 
flame gas-fired, and diffusion flame oil-fired subcategories to meet a 
formaldehyde limit of 91 parts per billion by volume, dry basis (ppbvd) 
at 15-percent oxygen (O2). Compliance is demonstrated 
through initial and annual performance testing and continuous 
monitoring of operating parameters. The requirements of the rule are 
currently under a stay of effectiveness for new lean premix and 
diffusion flame gas-fired turbines.

C. What changes did we propose for the Stationary Combustion Turbines 
source category in our April 12, 2019, proposal?

    On April 12, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register for the Stationary Combustion Turbines NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart YYYY, that took into consideration the RTR analyses. In the 
proposed rule, we proposed to find that risks from the Stationary 
Combustion Turbines source category due to emissions of air toxics are 
acceptable and that the existing NESHAP provides an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health. No new cost-effective controls were 
identified in the technology review for the proposed rule. The EPA also 
proposed to eliminate the exemption for periods of SSM, and our risk 
analysis assumed removal of that exemption. We proposed a new 
requirement to electronically submit performance test results and 
semiannual compliance reports. Finally, we proposed to remove the stay 
of the standards for new lean premix and diffusion flame gas-fired 
turbines. We did not propose any revisions to the emission standards 
based on our RTR.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR 
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Stationary Combustion Turbines 
source category. This action also finalizes other changes to the 
NESHAP, including amendments to the SSM provisions and the addition of 
electronic reporting requirements. This action reflects changes to the 
April 19, 2019, proposal in consideration of comments received during 
the public comment period described in section IV of this preamble.
    As stated previously, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed 
removal of the stay of the effectiveness of the standards for new lean 
premix and diffusion flame gas-fired turbines at this time. The EPA 
received numerous comments on the proposed stay indicating that 180 
days is not sufficient time for owners and operators to conduct all of 
the activities that are needed for their turbines to come into 
compliance with the standards, which include the design, procurement, 
and installation of emission controls and parametric monitoring 
equipment that can fit within existing sites (as compared to new 
facilities where the controls are incorporated into the facility 
design), performance testing, and implementation of procedures for 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. More time is needed to review 
these comments on the removal of the stay. In addition, the EPA 
received a petition to delist the Stationary Combustion Turbines source 
category from regulation under CAA section 112 in August 2019. As 
discussed in more detail in the April 12, 2019, proposal, the EPA 
proposed to delist certain subcategories of stationary combustion 
turbines in 2004 under CAA section 112(c)(9)(B) and stayed the 
effectiveness of the standards for those subcategories, pending the 
outcome of the proposed delisting. A subsequent 2007 decision by the 
court \2\ held that the EPA has no authority to delist subcategories 
under CAA section 112(c)(9)(B). Consequently, the EPA proposed to 
remove the stay in the April 12, 2019, proposal. In recognition of the 
EPA's inability to delist subcategories under CAA section 112(c)(9)(B), 
the new August 2019 petition requests delisting of the entire 
Stationary Combustion Turbines source category and provides an 
assessment of the risks for the entire source category. A copy of the 
petition is in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0688). The EPA is in the process of reviewing the petition and 
has not made a determination regarding whether the information included 
in the petition supports delisting the entire source category, but 
notes that the petitioners provided an analysis of the risks from the 
source category and, based on their analysis, the petitioners concluded 
that a demonstration can be made that delisting is appropriate under 
CAA section 112(c)(9)(B). The EPA has determined that it would be 
reasonable to delay taking final action on the stay until we have made 
a determination regarding the source category delisting petition, so 
that turbine owners and operators do not make expenditures on emission 
controls and performance testing that will not be required if the 
source category is delisted. Such expenditures would be wasteful and 
unwarranted if the source category is delisted. Moreover, the EPA has 
no legal obligation to lift the stay in this RTR rulemaking. Although 
the EPA often uses the RTR rulemaking vehicle to revise or update 
various aspects of a NESHAP, as it did here with respect to its 
proposal to eliminate a stay provision in the rule, the EPA did not do 
so nor is the EPA required to do so under CAA section 112(d)(6) or 
(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1364 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the 
Stationary Combustion Turbines source category?

    We are finalizing our proposed finding that risks remaining after 
implementation of the existing MACT standards for this source category 
(as revised in this action to remove the SSM exemption) are acceptable. 
We are also finalizing our proposed determination that the current 
NESHAP (as revised in this action to remove the SSM exemption) provides 
an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Therefore, we are 
not finalizing any revisions to the numerical emission

[[Page 13528]]

limits based on these analyses conducted under CAA section 112(f).

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review 
for the Stationary Combustion Turbines source category?

    We determined that there are no developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT 
standards for this source category. Therefore, we are not finalizing 
revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during 
periods of SSM?

    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), the court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's 
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during 
periods of SSM. Specifically, the court vacated the SSM exemption 
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that 
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations 
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the 
CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply 
continuously.
    We have eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with 
Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has established standards in this rule that 
apply at all times. We have also revised Table 7 (the General 
Provisions applicability table) in several respects as is explained in 
more detail in the proposal. For example, we have eliminated the 
incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that the source 
develop an SSM plan. We have also eliminated and revised certain 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are related to the SSM 
exemption as described in detail in the proposed rule and in section 
IV.C of this preamble.

D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?

    The EPA is requiring owners and operators of stationary combustion 
turbine facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required 
performance test results and semiannual compliance reports through the 
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions 
Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The final rule requires that 
performance test results collected using test methods that are 
supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the 
ERT website \3\ at the time of the test be submitted in the format 
generated through the use of the ERT and that other performance test 
results be submitted in portable document format using the attachment 
module of the ERT. The test methods required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
YYYY that are currently supported by the ERT are EPA Methods 3A and 4 
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. For periodic compliance reports, the 
final rule requires that owners and operators use the appropriate 
spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. The final version 
of the template for these reports is located on the CEDRI website.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
    \4\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this 
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those 
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and 
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health 
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the 
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with 
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, 
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and 
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated 
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting 
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and 
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing 
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the 
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. For a more 
thorough discussion of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, 
Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards 
(NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0688.

E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 
action are effective on March 9, 2020. The compliance date for affected 
sources to comply with the amendments pertaining to SSM and electronic 
reporting is 180 days after the effective date of the final rule. As 
discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are adding a requirement that 
performance test results and semiannual compliance reports be submitted 
electronically, and we are changing the requirements for periods of SSM 
by removing the exemption from the requirement to meet the emission 
standards during periods of SSM and promulgating an operational 
standard for startup. Our experience with similar industries that are 
required to convert reporting mechanisms to install necessary hardware 
and software, become familiar with the process of submitting 
performance test results and compliance reports electronically through 
the EPA's CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and 
reliably employ electronic reporting shows that a time period of a 
minimum of 90 days and, more typically, 180 days, is generally 
necessary to successfully accomplish these revisions. Our experience 
with similar industries further shows that this sort of regulated 
facility generally requires a time period of 180 days to read and 
understand the amended rule requirements; to evaluate their operations 
to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup 
and shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments; 
and to update their operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans to 
reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that 
multiple different compliance dates for individual requirements would 
create and the additional burden such an assortment of dates would 
impose. From our assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with 
the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 
180 days to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable and, 
thus, is requiring that affected sources must be in compliance with all 
of the revised requirements within 180 days of the regulation's 
effective date. All affected facilities would have to continue to meet 
the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYY, until the 
applicable compliance date of the amended rule.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Stationary Combustion Turbines source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale 
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments 
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment 
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary 
and response document available in the docket.

[[Page 13529]]

A. Residual Risk Review for the Stationary Combustion Turbines Source 
Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the 
Stationary Combustion Turbines source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk 
review and presented the results of this review, along with our 
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of 
safety, in the April 12, 2019, proposed rule for 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart YYYY (84 FR 15046). The results of the risk assessment for the 
proposal are presented briefly below in Table 2 of this preamble. More 
detail is in the residual risk technical support document, Residual 
Risk Assessment for the Stationary Combustion Turbines Source Category 
in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, 
available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0688).

                                       Table 2--Stationary Combustion Turbines Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Maximum individual     Population at  increased  Annual cancer  incidence       Maximum chronic      Maximum  screening acute  noncancer
                cancer risk  (in 1     risk of  cancer >=1-in-1       (cases per year)        noncancer  TOSHI 3                     HQ 4
                    million) 2                  million         ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Number of  ----------------------------------------------------      Based on . . .            Based on . . .
 facilities       Based on . . .            Based on . . .      ----------------------------------------------------
     1      ----------------------------------------------------
                Actual     Allowable      Actual     Allowable      Actual     Allowable      Actual     Allowable     Based on actual emissions level
              emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions
                level        level        level        level        level        level        level        level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       253            3            3       42,000       42,000         0.04         0.04         0.04         0.04   HQREL = 2 (acrolein), HQAEGL-1 =
                                                                                                                      0.07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Maximum target organ specific hazard index (TOSHI). The target organ system with the highest TOSHI for the source category is respiratory. The
  respiratory TOSHI was calculated using the California Environmental Protection Agency chronic recommended exposure limit (REL) for acrolein. The EPA
  is in the process of updating the Integrated Risk Information System reference concentration for acrolein.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of hazard quotient (HQ)
  values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ
  using the next lowest available acute dose-response value.

    The results of the proposal inhalation risk modeling using actual 
and allowable emissions data, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble, 
indicate that the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk (MIR) is 3-
in-1 million, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI is 0.04, and the 
maximum screening acute noncancer HQ (off-facility site) is 2 (driven 
by acrolein). Only one facility has an HQ (REL) that exceeds 1. At 
proposal, the total annual cancer incidence (national) from these 
facilities was estimated to be 0.04 excess cancer cases per year, or 
one case in every 25 years. The facility-wide maximum lifetime cancer 
MIR was estimated to be 2,000-in-1 million at proposal, driven by 
ethylene oxide emissions from chemical manufacturing. At proposal, the 
total estimated cancer incidence from whole facility emissions was 
estimated to be 0.7 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in 
every 1 to 2 years. Approximately 2.8 million people were estimated to 
have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted 
from both MACT and non-MACT sources at the facilities in the source 
category. The estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI based on 
facility-wide emissions is 4 (respiratory), driven by emissions of 
chlorine from chemical manufacturing, and approximately 360 people are 
exposed to a TOSHI above 1.
    At proposal, potential multipathway human health risks were 
estimated using a three-tier screening assessment of the persistent 
bio-accumulative HAP (PB-HAP) emitted by facilities in this source 
category. The only pollutants with elevated Tier 1 and Tier 2 screening 
values were arsenic (cancer), cadmium (noncancer), and mercury 
(noncancer). The Tier 3 screening values for these pollutants were low. 
For cancer, the Tier 3 screening value for arsenic was 4. For 
noncancer, the Tier 3 screening value for cadmium was less than 1, and 
the screening value for mercury was 1.
    Several environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source 
category: Arsenic, dioxins/furans, and polycyclic organic matter. 
Therefore, at proposal we conducted a three-tier screening assessment 
of the potential adverse environmental risks associated with emissions 
of these pollutants. Based on this assessment (through Tier 2), there 
were no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated for 
any of the pollutants, and we proposed that we do not expect an adverse 
environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source 
category.
    We weighed all health risk factors, including those shown in Table 
2 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability determination and 
proposed that the residual risks from the Stationary Combustion 
Turbines source category are acceptable (section IV.B.1 of proposal 
preamble, 84 FR 15062, April 12, 2019). We then considered whether 40 
CFR part 63, subpart YYYY provides an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health and prevents, taking into consideration costs, energy, 
safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. In 
considering whether the standards should be tightened to provide an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health, we considered all 
health factors evaluated in the risk assessment and evaluated the cost 
and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures 
(including the controls, measures, and costs reviewed under the 
technology review) that could be applied to this source category to 
further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP 
identified in our risk assessment. In this analysis, we considered the 
results of the technology review, risk assessment, and other aspects of 
our MACT rule review to determine whether there are any emission 
reduction measures necessary to provide an ample margin of safety with 
respect to the risks associated with these emissions. Our risk analysis 
indicated the risks from the source category are low for both cancer 
and noncancer health effects, and, therefore, any risk reductions from 
further available control options would result in minimal health 
benefits. Moreover, as noted in our discussion of the technology 
review, no additional cost-effective measures were identified for 
reducing HAP emissions from affected sources in the Stationary 
Combustion Turbines source category. Thus, we determined that the 
current Stationary Combustion Turbines NESHAP provides an ample margin 
of safety to protect public health.
    Our technology review focused on identifying developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies that

[[Page 13530]]

have occurred since the Stationary Combustion Turbines NESHAP was 
originally promulgated in 2004. Our review of the developments in 
technology for the Stationary Combustion Turbines source category did 
not reveal any changes that require revisions to the emission 
standards. The only add-on HAP emission control technology identified 
in the original NESHAP rulemaking was an oxidation catalyst. No new or 
improved add-on control technologies that reduce HAP emissions from 
turbines were identified during the technology review. Our review also 
did not identify any new or improved operation and maintenance 
practices, process changes, pollution prevention approaches, or testing 
and monitoring techniques for stationary combustion turbines. 
Therefore, we determined that no revisions are necessary pursuant to 
CAA section 112(d)(6).
2. How did the risk review change for the Stationary Combustion 
Turbines source category?
    The only change in the risk assessment for the final rule is that 
the EPA modeled an additional 46 turbines that were identified in a 
public comment (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0688-0116) as 
subject to the Stationary Combustion Turbines NESHAP. The emissions 
data used to model those additional turbines and the results of the 
modeling are discussed in the memorandum titled Emissions Data Used in 
Modeling Files for Additional Turbines for Stationary Combustion 
Turbines Risk and Technology Review (RTR), which is in the docket for 
this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0688). The modeling 
input files are also available in the docket. The risks for the 
additional turbines were all lower than the risks for the turbines 
modeled for the proposed rule, so the additional risk analysis did not 
result in changes to our proposed decisions on risk acceptability, 
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are 
our responses?
    We received comments in support of and against the proposed 
residual risk review and our determination that no revisions were 
warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2) for the Stationary Combustion 
Turbines source category. Generally, the comments that were not 
supportive of the determination from the risk review suggested changes 
to the underlying risk assessment methodology. For example, some 
commenters stated that the EPA should lower the acceptability benchmark 
so that risks below 100-in-1 million are unacceptable, include 
emissions outside of the source categories in question in the risk 
assessment, and assume that pollutants with noncancer health risks have 
no safe level of exposure. After review of all the comments received, 
we determined that no changes were necessary. The comments and our 
specific responses can be found in the document, National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Stationary Combustion 
Turbines (40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYY) Residual Risk and Technology 
Review, Final Amendments: Summary of Public Comments and Responses on 
Proposed Rule, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0688).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the risk review?
    As noted in our proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2) using a two-step standard-setting approach, with an 
analytical first step to make a risk-acceptability determination that 
considers all health information, including risk estimation 
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately 
1-in-10 thousand (see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). We weigh all 
health risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including 
the cancer MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum cancer TOSHI, the maximum 
acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of 
cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and the risk 
estimation uncertainties.
    Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations 
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse 
environmental effects have changed, even considering the additional 46 
turbines modeled. Therefore, for the reasons explained in the proposed 
rule, we determined that the risks from this source category are 
acceptable, and the current standards provide an ample margin of safety 
to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. 
Therefore, we are not revising this subpart to require additional 
controls pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) based on the residual risk 
review, and we are readopting the existing standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2).

B. Technology Review for the Stationary Combustion Turbines Source 
Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the 
Stationary Combustion Turbines source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we conducted a technology 
review, which focused on identifying and evaluating developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies for control of HAP 
emissions from stationary combustion turbines. No cost-effective 
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies were 
identified in our technology review to warrant revisions to the 
standards. More information concerning our technology review can be 
found in the Technology Review for Stationary Combustion Turbines Risk 
and Technology Review (RTR) memorandum, which is in the docket for this 
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0688), and in the preamble for 
the proposed rule (84 FR 15046).
2. How did the technology review change for the Stationary Combustion 
Turbines source category?
    The technology review has not changed since the proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    We received both supportive and adverse comments on the proposed 
technology review. Most commenters supported the EPA's proposed 
technology review determination. The summarized comments and the EPA's 
responses are provided in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants from Stationary Combustion Turbines (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart YYYY), Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments, 
Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Proposed Rule document 
referenced in section IV.A.3 of the preamble. The most significant 
adverse comments and the EPA's responses are also provided below.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA reviewed only the 
technology used to limit formaldehyde in the technology review and does 
not evaluate selective catalytic reduction (SCR) or any other of the 
technologies identified as ``developments'' within the meaning of CAA 
section 112(d)(6), which is unlawful and arbitrary.
    The commenter stated that the EPA ignored other HAP controls in the 
technology review--such as wet controls (water or steam injection), 
lean premixed combustion, and SCR--without any rational explanation. 
The

[[Page 13531]]

commenter noted that the EPA is aware of evidence showing that SCR can 
and does reduce HAP, such as benzene. The commenter cited a 2016 study, 
Catalytic Destruction of a Surrogate Organic Hazardous Air Pollutant as 
a Potential Co-benefit for Coal-fired Selective Catalyst Reduction 
Systems (C.W. Lee et al.), which found that ``significant destruction 
of benzene occurred under a broad range of SCR operating conditions, 
suggesting that a large number of coalfired utility boilers which are 
equipped with SCR for NOX control have potential to achieve 
reduction of organic HAP emissions as a co-benefit.''
    The commenter stated that the EPA must consider ways to reduce 
emissions through developments such as: Methods to assure more 
efficient use of turbines; use of lower HAP fuels; and/or alternative 
energy generation altogether through renewables and/or battery storage 
systems. According to the commenter, the EPA must consider battery 
storage in particular because this has the potential to increase 
efficiency and reduce emissions, and to reduce all of the turbine-based 
risks the EPA found to zero by reducing the emissions completely if 
paired with a renewable energy source such as solar. The commenter 
stated that the EPA does not evaluate or take into account any of these 
developments, and this is unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious under CAA 
section 112(d)(6).
    The commenter noted that there are also developments in volatile 
organic compounds, acid gas, and metal controls, leak detection and 
repair, and monitoring that the EPA must consider and ensure that the 
standards ``tak[e] into account'' for this source category and these 
facilities. The commenter stated that since the EPA finalized the 
original standards, the EPA has recognized such developments in other 
contexts. The commenter concluded that the EPA would violate CAA 
section 112(d)(6) by failing to consider and account for the 
``developments'' in fenceline monitoring, leak detection and repair, 
and pollution controls--particularly where data show significant health 
risks from a range of emitted pollutants, including cancer, chronic 
noncancer, and acute risk. The commenter stated that refusing to 
consider these developments is also arbitrary. The commenter explained 
that many facilities that include turbines are similar to refineries, 
in their significant potential for leaks and emission spikes that cause 
health and safety threats, and in their complexity. The commenter 
concluded that all of the developments discussed are readily available, 
would improve emission control, reduce health risks and refusing to 
consider them and revise the standards to ``account'' for them would be 
unlawful and arbitrary.
    Conversely, another commenter stated that, setting aside whether 
fenceline monitoring technology constitutes a ``development'' under CAA 
section 112(d)(6), it would be arbitrary and capricious to adopt 
fenceline monitoring requirements for stationary combustion turbines as 
part of this RTR. Fenceline monitoring is used to identify sources of 
fugitive emissions. According to the commenter, stationary combustion 
turbines do not have fugitive HAP emissions. According to the 
commenter, even if some combustion turbine facilities may also contain 
other equipment with the potential for fugitive emissions, such as 
natural gas transmission pipelines, that other equipment is not part of 
the source category under review here and cannot be the basis for new 
requirements adopted pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) review for 
combustion turbines.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that it only 
reviewed technologies used to limit formaldehyde emissions. As 
discussed in the memorandum, Technology Review for Stationary 
Combustion Turbines Risk and Technology Review (RTR) (Docket ID Item 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0688-0066), the EPA reviewed a variety of sources 
of information during the technology review. Those sources of 
information included the EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC), 
construction and operating permits for stationary combustion turbines, 
information provided by owners and operators of stationary combustion 
turbines, and manufacturers of emission control technologies and 
testing equipment. The review was not limited to technologies that 
limit formaldehyde emissions, as evidenced by the RBLC search criteria 
documented in Appendix A of the memorandum and the questions asked of 
industry stakeholders described in Appendix B of the memorandum.
    The 2016 study cited by the commenter as evidence that SCR reduces 
HAP such as benzene evaluated the HAP reductions from SCR applied to 
simulated coal combustion flue gases. The chemical composition of the 
coal combustion flue gases is very different from the chemical 
composition of the exhaust from stationary combustion turbines, and 
there is no evidence provided that the use of SCR in coal combustion 
exhaust and the resulting catalytic chemical reactions that cause the 
destruction of benzene would occur in the same way if SCR is applied to 
stationary combustion turbines. The information provided to the EPA 
regarding ``dual-purpose'' catalysts that include SCR for nitrogen 
oxides (NOx) removal and oxidation for carbon monoxide (CO) and HAP 
removal indicates that the HAP reduction occurs due to the oxidation 
and not from the SCR.\5\ The commenter did not provide any evidence 
that water or steam injection would reduce HAP emissions, or that fuels 
that lead to lower HAP emissions have been developed. Lean premix 
combustion is not a new technology (and is one of the subcategories 
established in the original 2004 40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYY 
rulemaking) and the commenter did not provide any evidence that there 
have been any developments in the technology. As discussed in the 
memorandum cited above, the trade organization representing gas turbine 
manufacturers indicated that there have not been any changes in turbine 
design since the 2004 rulemaking. We disagree that the EPA must 
consider alternative energy generation altogether through renewables 
and/or battery storage and that the use of batteries if paired with 
renewable energy such as solar would reduce emissions completely. The 
commenter's suggested technology (renewables and batteries) is not a 
revision to the emissions standard for the Stationary Combustion 
Turbines source category, which is what the EPA is required to review 
and revise as appropriate, under CAA section 112(d)(6). The commenter 
is suggesting elimination of combustion turbines as a source category 
and that is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Even if such an 
approach were an appropriate ``revision'' of the emission standards for 
combustion turbines under CAA section 112(d)(6), the commenter did not 
provide any information to show that using renewables or battery 
storage has been demonstrated on the scale that would be needed to 
replace the generation produced by the combustion turbines subject to 
subpart YYYY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See the memorandum, Technology Review for Stationary 
Combustion Turbines Risk and Technology Review (RTR) (Docket ID Item 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0688-0066).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the comment that the EPA should consider leak detection 
and repair and fenceline monitoring requirements, the EPA notes that 
those requirements were included in the NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries 
(40 CFR part 63, subpart CC). Those requirements for refineries target 
refinery MACT-regulated fugitive emission sources (e.g., storage tanks,

[[Page 13532]]

equipment leaks, and wastewater). Fenceline monitoring, as discussed in 
the preamble to the proposed Petroleum Refinery rule (79 FR 36920), may 
identify significant increases in emissions, but small increases in 
emissions are unlikely to impact the fenceline concentrations. 
Fenceline monitoring would not be beneficial for the Stationary 
Combustion Turbines source category because stationary turbines have 
very low fugitive HAP emissions and their operation does not involve 
storage and transport of large volumes of volatile organic materials 
unlike the refinery sector. The potential for fugitive volatile organic 
HAP emissions, as a result of the reduced amount of transport and the 
reduced storage of volatile organic materials, is vastly lower.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology 
review?
    We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's technology review and 
determined that no changes to the review are needed based on the 
comments. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined 
that no cost-effective developments in practices, processes, or control 
technologies were identified in our technology review to warrant 
revisions to the standards. More information concerning our technology 
review and how we evaluate cost effectiveness can be found in the 
Technology Review for Stationary Combustion Turbines Risk and 
Technology Review (RTR) memorandum, which is in the docket for this 
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0688), and in the preamble for 
the proposed rule (84 FR 15046). Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6), we are finalizing our technology review as proposed.

C. SSM Provisions for the Stationary Combustion Turbines Source 
Category

1. What did we propose for the Stationary Combustion Turbines source 
category?
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), the court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's 
CAA section 112 General Provisions regulations governing the emissions 
of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the court vacated the SSM 
exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding 
that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or 
limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption 
violates the CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards 
apply continuously.
    The EPA proposed to revise provisions related to SSM that are not 
consistent with the requirement that standards apply at all times. More 
information concerning our proposal on SSM can be found in the proposed 
rule (84 FR 15046). As discussed in the proposal, the EPA proposed an 
operational standard in lieu of a numeric emission limit during periods 
of startup, in accordance with CAA section 112(h). The EPA proposed 
that during turbine startup, owners and operators must minimize the 
turbine's time spent at idle or holding at low load levels and minimize 
the turbine's startup time to a period needed for appropriate and safe 
loading of the turbine, not to exceed 1 hour for simple cycle 
stationary combustion turbines and 3 hours for combined cycle 
stationary combustion turbines, after which time the formaldehyde 
emission limitation of 91 ppbvd at 15-percent O2 would 
apply. We did not propose a different standard that would apply during 
shutdown.
2. How did the SSM provisions change for the Stationary Combustion 
Turbines source category?
    In the final rule, we revised aspects of the operational standard 
for startup from the proposal based on public comments. We removed the 
language specifying that the owner or operator must minimize the 
turbine's time spent at idle or holding at low levels and minimize the 
turbine's startup time to a period needed for appropriate and safe 
loading of the turbine. We have also added a definition for startup 
that is specific to stationary combustion turbines, rather than using 
the general definition in the General Provisions (subpart A) of 40 CFR 
part 63. The definition specifies that startup begins at the first 
firing of fuel in the stationary combustion turbine.
    In response to comments regarding the proposed operational standard 
for startup and the proposed conclusion that a standard for shutdown is 
not necessary, the EPA evaluated Acid Rain Program hourly emissions 
data for stationary combustion turbines from 2018.\6\ The stabilization 
of NOx emissions, an indicator of stable combustion and post-combustion 
processes, was used to determine startup and shutdown times for 
turbines subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYY. Based on the Acid 
Rain Program emissions data, the EPA determined that the majority of 
turbine startup times were less than 1 hour for simple cycle turbines 
and the majority of startup times were less than 3 hours for combined 
cycle turbines. Upper prediction limits for the best performers for 
startup time were also determined following statistical methods used to 
define upper prediction limits for MACT emission standards (e.g., 
methods detailed in the memorandum, CO CEMS MACT Floor Analysis August 
2012 for the Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and 
Process Heaters National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants Major Source, Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058-3877). 
Upper prediction limits were less than 1 hour for simple cycle turbines 
and less than 3 hours for combined cycle turbines regardless of startup 
type (i.e., cold, warm, and hot starts). Additionally, the majority of 
shutdown times were less than 30 minutes for both simple cycle and 
combined cycle turbines. Finally, utilizing oxidation catalyst had 
minimal effect on startup and shutdown times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the memorandum titled Stationary combustion turbine 
startups and shutdowns based on Acid Rain Program CEMS data, which 
can be found in the rulemaking docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0688).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions, and what are 
our responses?
    Comment: Commenters stated that the proposed rule does not define 
what constitutes the period of startup, including the beginning and the 
ending. The commenters added that 40 CFR part 63 defines startup as 
``the setting in operation of an affected source or portion of an 
affected source for any purpose.'' The commenters stated that this 
definition is vague and does not specify when startup ends. The 
commenters suggested that the EPA provide a definition of startup as it 
applies to simple cycle and combined cycle combustion turbines. A 
commenter also stated that some combined cycle combustion turbines can 
operate in simple cycle mode. Therefore, the EPA also needs to address 
these types of turbines in the definitions or the standard itself, 
according to the commenter. A commenter added that the definition used 
in the standard should not interfere with the definition of startup in 
other parts of the CAA or in operating permits, nor should it constrain 
normal operations. The commenter specifically suggested that the EPA 
revise the operational standard to apply only upon the first firing of 
fuel in the combustion turbine.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters that it would be 
appropriate to define startup as beginning at the first firing of fuel 
in the stationary combustion turbine and to

[[Page 13533]]

specify when the startup standard ends. The EPA has specified different 
startup times for simple cycle and combined cycle turbines, as 
discussed elsewhere in this section. For simple cycle turbines, the EPA 
has specified in the final rule that startup ends when the stationary 
combustion turbine has reached stable operation or after 1 hour, 
whichever is less. For combined cycle turbines, startup ends when the 
stationary combustion turbine has reached stable operation or after 3 
hours, whichever is less. If a turbine in a combined cycle 
configuration is operating as a simple cycle turbine, it must follow 
the requirements for simple cycle turbines. Regarding the comment that 
the definition should not interfere with the definition of startup in 
other parts of the CAA or in operating permits or constrain normal 
operations, the EPA does not anticipate any interference. As discussed 
elsewhere in this section, the standard is based on turbine startup 
times gathered from emissions data, and it also allows the turbine to 
take longer to start up if needed (while requiring that the turbine 
meet the applicable formaldehyde limit).
    Comment: Many commenters expressed support for the establishment of 
the operational standard during startup operations but asserted that 
the EPA must allow more time for certain startup operations for 
combined cycle stationary combustion turbines. Some commenters stated 
that they believe the record does not demonstrate the feasibility of a 
3-hour startup time for combined cycle units. They added that it 
appears the 3-hour limit was taken from a document from the Gas Turbine 
Association (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0688-0033). These 
commenters stated that while this document discusses a period of 3 
hours for startup, the document also discusses the wide range of 
variability in the time needed. Several commenters explained that the 
startup time for a combined cycle turbine is impacted by its 
integration with other site facilities and the type of startup. Some 
commenters cited specific instances when additional startup time beyond 
what was proposed for combined cycle turbines may be expected, 
including:
     Startups following extended downtime or a unit turnaround 
which commenters asserted may take up to 10 hours. A commenter provided 
a list of nine major steps for startup following a unit turnaround in 
their comment letter to support the need for additional startup time;
     startup involving combined heat and power units as the 
startup typically involves purging and setup of the heat recovery steam 
generator, followed by gas speed-up and loading, followed by the steam 
turbine speedup and loading;
     various types of startup including a ``warm'' start (i.e., 
when the steam turbine first stage or reheat inner metal temperature is 
between 400 and 700 degrees Fahrenheit) and a ``cold'' start (i.e., 
when the steam turbine first stage or reheat inner metal temperature is 
less than 400 degrees Fahrenheit). One commenter reviewed operating 
data from 2017-2019 for some of its stationary combined cycle 
combustion turbines, noting that 32 out of 82 ``warm'' startups 
exceeded a 3-hour duration with an average duration of 3.3-4 hours, and 
all 23 of the ``cold'' startups exceeded the 3-hour duration with an 
average duration of 5-6 hours. Another commenter stated that member 
companies will be submitting facility-specific data showing the impact 
of startup type on duration;
     startup involving gas fuel turbines integrated with other 
systems associated with multiple boilers to produce electricity and 
steam for a large manufacturing complex; and
     pre-startup commissioning activities and initial startup 
at liquid natural gas terminals.

These commenters suggested that the EPA provide additional time in the 
startup operational standard for combined cycle turbines.
    Some commenters suggested that 4 hours be provided in the standard. 
Other commenters suggested that the EPA allow 5.5 hours as the baseline 
with provisions for site-specific requests for additional time. Some 
commenters suggested that the final action should provide a procedure 
for the EPA or state permitting authorities to provide application of 
an alternative standard for combined cycle turbines if an operator 
demonstrates that it is needed. A commenter suggested that the EPA 
allow between 6-8 hours in the standard. Another commenter suggested 
that the EPA allow up to 10 hours in the standard. One commenter 
suggested that, consistent with their state operating permit 
requirements and due to the unique nature of their operations, the EPA 
should allow up to 12 hours in the standard. Another commenter added 
that the EPA could provide different time frames if they differentiated 
between different startup types (i.e., provide the most time for cold 
startups and the least time for hot startups).
    Alternatively, other commenters suggested that the EPA could 
maintain the 3-hour standard for combined cycle turbines but allow a 
more extended startup time to facilities if they document the need for 
the additional startup time; maintain associated records; provide semi-
annual reporting; and take steps during the startup to minimize 
emissions consistent with good air pollution control practices.
    Commenters suggested the standard should require that owners and 
operators of combined cycle units minimize the time the turbines spend 
at idle or low load operations, and that they complete the startup 
process while operating the equipment in a manner consistent with good 
air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions, rather than 
having the EPA impose a one-size-fits-all hour limit. One commenter 
suggested that the end of the startup period should be when the unit 
begins to operate in ``normal mode'' as signaled from the turbine 
control system. Commenters also suggested that if the EPA maintains an 
hour limit, the standard should be amended to exclude malfunctions 
encountered during startup from the calculation of the startup time as 
such events could cause sources to exceed the window.
    One commenter recommended that the final rule not supersede site-
specific requirements with a one-size-fits-all approach. The commenter 
suggested that the final standard include approved procedural work 
practices to provide additional assurance of an efficient and 
expeditious startup process (i.e., a procedural startup work practice 
could specify that ammonia injection would begin when the catalyst 
temperature meets a certain minimum temperature). According to the 
commenter, these procedural work practices can be maintained, 
submitted, and approved by the administrator outside of the air permit 
to minimize permit changes similar to the way quality assurance/quality 
control manuals are handled.
    One commenter suggested that if a more generic startup requirement 
cannot not be implemented, the EPA should address any imposition of a 
time limit for startup of a reconstructed combined cycle unit on a 
case-by-case basis in recognition of the diverse combined cycle plant 
designs and how such designs impact the rate at which startup can be 
achieved.
    As with the proposed operational standard for combined cycle 
turbines, several commenters expressed support for the proposed 
operational standard for simple cycle turbines during startup but 
expressed concern with the amount of time provided for startup. 
Commenters noted that 1 hour for a simple cycle turbine is sufficient 
in most cases, however, the commenter explained that the EPA should 
provide

[[Page 13534]]

additional time for extenuating circumstances including the startup of 
associated post-combustion control technology which can take over an 
hour to warm-up and achieve the required destruction rate. One 
commenter added that initial commissioning or maintenance may require 
additional startup time. The commenter suggested that the EPA allow 
longer startup times and require facilities utilizing a longer startup 
time to document the circumstance in their periodic report to ensure 
there was a reasonable basis.
    Similarly, other commenters stated that more time should be 
provided for simple cycle turbines and suggested that the EPA provide 2 
hours consistent with some state permits. One commenter asserted that 
the federal requirements should not contradict state operating permit 
conditions already in place which provide more time than the proposed 
rule. Commenters stated that the final action should provide a 
procedure for the EPA or state permitting authority to provide 
application of an alternative standard if an operator demonstrates that 
it is needed.
    Response: In the final action, the definition of startup is 
specified to begin at the initial combustion of fuel in the turbine. 
Other operations prior to this event are not included in the time 
period allocated for startup in this rule.
    In response to the comments that the proposed time limit for 
startup in the operational standard for startup was not sufficient, as 
discussed previously in this section, the EPA reviewed continuous 
emission monitoring systems (CEMS) data from 2018 for 182 turbines 
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYY. This includes both simple and 
combined cycle turbines representing a range of different designs. The 
analysis is documented in the memorandum titled Stationary Combustion 
Turbine Startups and Shutdowns Based on Acid Rain Program CEMS Data, 
which can be found in the rulemaking docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0688). As discussed in the memorandum, the stabilization of 
NOX emission rates indicates stable operation (i.e., of 
combustion and post-combustion controls) and was used to determine the 
length of startup and shutdown periods. For simple cycle turbines, 90 
percent of startups were less than 1 hour for stabilization of 
emissions for all startup types (i.e., ``cold,'' ``warm,'' ``hot''; 
turbine out of operation for more than 48 hours, 8-48 hours, and 0-8 
hours, respectively). For combined cycle turbines, 90 percent of 
``warm'' and ``hot'' startups were less than 3 hours and 72 percent of 
``cold'' startups were less than 3 hours.
    In a second part of the analysis, the EPA reviewed CEMS data from 
2018 for turbines with oxidation catalyst. For simple cycle turbines 
with oxidation catalyst, 80 percent of cold startups, 76 percent of 
warm startups, and 93 percent of hot startups were less than 1 hour. 
For combined cycle turbines with oxidation catalyst, at least 93 
percent of startups were less than 3 hours for each startup type. 
Finally, in all cases the 99-percent upper prediction limits for 
startup of turbines were within the proposed time limits (at most 0.92 
hours for cold starts for simple cycle turbines with oxidation catalyst 
and 2.93 hours for cold starts for combined cycle turbines subject to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYY). Upper prediction limits were determined 
for the best performing turbines in terms of startup time based on 
NOX emission stabilization.
    As noted in the memorandum, NOX emissions were not used 
as a surrogate for HAP emissions. Rather, NOX emissions were 
only used as an indicator for when stabilization of combustion and 
post-combustion processes may occur. Collectively, the analyses 
demonstrate that time limits in the proposed operational standards for 
startup are justified. Furthermore, upper prediction limits for the 
startup time to stabilization of NOX emissions were near the 
startup time limits of 1 hour for simple cycle turbines and 3 hours for 
combined cycle turbines, suggesting that the startup time limits are 
generally neither too short nor too long with respect to emissions 
stabilization.
    Based on the review of CEMS data, the EPA determined that the 
proposed time limits for the application of the operational standard 
for startup are reasonable and consistent with what the best performers 
achieve. Therefore, the EPA is not changing the proposed time limits 
based on public comments. Regarding the comments that the EPA should 
address time limits on a case-by-case basis, if situations occur that 
warrant an alternative standard, the owner/operator can request an 
alternative standard pursuant to the requirements specified in CAA 
section 112(h)(3) and 40 CFR 63.6(g).
    Comment: Commenters stated that the requirement within the proposed 
operational standard to ``minimize the turbine's time spent at idle or 
holding at low load levels'' is problematic in their opinion.
    One commenter stated that greater clarity is needed between what is 
termed ``startup'' and what is termed ``idle'' in the process. The 
commenter explained that startup by its very nature begins at ``low 
load levels'' before the turbine is safely loaded and questioned where 
is the dividing line between which levels are considered startup and 
which levels are considered idle, or, alternatively, at what point in 
time do low load levels of startup become idle low load levels? The 
commenter stated that implicit in the proposed distinction seems to be 
the assumption that operators would run a turbine at ``idle'' for 
unknown reasons during the startup process. The commenter asserted that 
this is contrary to generally accepted operating practices. See, e.g., 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 884 F.3d 1185, 1203 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (``Boiler 
operators lack incentives to combust fuel for no useful purpose, simply 
as a means to avoid engaging pollution controls, so presumably they do 
not tarry in heating their equipment to that point.'').
    One commenter stated that the terms ``idle'' and ``holding at low 
load levels'' have not been defined. The commenter asserted that 
without defining these terms and how the EPA intends for units to 
measure compliance with the operational standard, it is unclear what 
standards combustion turbine operators need to meet outside of their 
existing permit terms. The commenter stated that the proposed language 
in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYY, therefore, creates 
confusion as to whether these combustion turbines can continue to 
operate as intended. Other commenters explained that combustion 
turbines are often designed, built, permitted, and operated to be load-
following and to sometimes idle or be held at low load, when necessary, 
to enable faster ramping as support for intermittent renewable 
resources (e.g., solar panels). A commenter stated that some operators 
may need to hold a combustion turbine at low load to allow the heat 
recovery steam generator and steam turbine associated with a combined 
cycle to reach normal operating temperature. According to the 
commenter, the metal in the steam turbine must be warmed in a 
controlled manner to allow the proper expansion of moving parts. The 
commenter stated that once the heat recovery steam generator and steam 
turbine metal are properly warmed and expanded, the combined cycle can, 
at that time, ramp up load to meet demand. The commenter contended that 
any artificial restrictions on the amount of minimum operating time 
allowed may require turbine operators to risk damaging critical 
equipment. The commenter added that good engineering practices require 
testing at low loads following a planned maintenance outage to ensure

[[Page 13535]]

the equipment is operating safely and performing as expected. The 
commenter stated that some manufacturers require this type of testing 
as part of contractual agreement. Therefore, the commenter suggested 
that the operational standard be revised as follows: ``During turbine 
startup, you must minimize the turbine's time needed to achieve the 
operating limitations provided in Table 2, taking into account the 
appropriate and safe loading of the turbine and auxiliary equipment, 
not to exceed 1 hour for simple cycle stationary combustion turbines 
and 3 hours for combined cycle stationary combustion turbines, after 
which time the operating limitation and continuous compliance 
requirements in Table 2 and 5 apply.'' Another commenter provided an 
example of a Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit that has 
specifically authorized operation at low loads in order to provide 
fast-ramping capacity to support the integration of renewable resources 
(e.g., Maricopa County Air Quality Permit Department, Title V Permit 
No. V95-007, ``Ocotillo PSD Permit''). The commenter noted that the 
permit conditions clearly distinguish between ``startup'' and operation 
at low load. The commenter also noted that the EPA's Environmental 
Appeals Board reviewed and approved the Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration limits in this permit.
    One commenter suggested that the EPA amend the proposed language to 
allow adequate time to ensure safe loading of the turbine even if it is 
beyond the otherwise applicable startup time limits.
    Another commenter stated that, at a minimum, the standard should 
not be written to prohibit low loads, especially if the unit is 
equipped with an oxidation catalyst and can meet its 4-hour average 
catalyst inlet temperature operating limit during low load operation.
    One commenter recommended that the EPA either eliminate the 
proposed requirement, ``minimize the turbine's time spent at idle or 
holding at low load levels'' or clarify the proposed language by 
replacing the phrase ``time spent at idle or holding at low load 
levels'' with the phrase ``operating time outside normal operations.''
    Other commenters concluded that the EPA should not finalize this 
requirement as part of the operational standard.
    One commenter encouraged the EPA to revise the operational standard 
for startup in a manner that distinguishes between continuous, stable 
operation at low loads and true startup conditions.
    Response: Based on these comments, the EPA is not finalizing the 
proposed requirement to minimize a turbine's time spent at idle or 
holding at low load levels. As stated by the commenters, some turbines 
are designed and permitted to operate at idle or low load conditions. 
For the final rule, there will not be an operational requirement to 
minimize time spent operating in an idle or low load status. Operation 
in such a status (except during startup) will be treated as normal 
operation and will not have a separate standard. As discussed elsewhere 
in this section, the EPA has clarified the definition for startup to 
distinguish the beginning and end of the startup operational standard.
    Comment: One commenter noted that 40 CFR 63.6125 states, ``If you 
are operating a stationary combustion turbine that is required to 
comply with the formaldehyde emission limitation and you use an 
oxidation catalyst emission control device, you must monitor on a 
continuous basis your catalyst inlet temperature in order to comply 
with the operating limitation in Table 2 and as specified in Table 5 of 
this subpart.'' The commenter then pointed out that Tables 2 and 5 
refer to the calculation of a 4-hour rolling average catalyst inlet 
temperature. The commenter explained that the catalyst must achieve a 
certain inlet temperature before formaldehyde emissions are controlled, 
so the inlet temperature monitoring should begin at the conclusion of 
startup. The commenter suggested that the EPA clarify that the 
calculation of the 4-hour rolling average begins at the start of the 
first full clock hour after startup.
    For the same reasons (i.e., turbines using an oxidation catalyst 
will need time to reach the desired temperature), other commenters 
suggested that the EPA clarify that the operating limitations in Table 
2 do not apply during startup. These commenters also suggested that the 
operating limits in Table 2 not apply during shutdown as the inlet 
temperature may fall below the desired level as the combustion turbine 
transitions out of operation.
    One commenter also requested that the EPA clarify that the 
demonstration of continuous compliance with the operating limits 
specified in Table 5 do not include hours containing SSM in the 
calculation. The commenter recommended that the EPA revise the 
operating limitations in Table 5 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYY to 
include the following language, ``Any hour during which the startup 
work practice standard is applicable or during which shutdown or 
malfunction occurs must not be included in the calculation to 
demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limitation.''
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the catalyst inlet 
temperature operating limitation should not apply during startup, since 
the catalyst needs time to heat up to the required temperature. The EPA 
has revised the rule to reflect this change. The EPA does not agree 
that the catalyst inlet temperature recorded during periods of shutdown 
should not be included in the 4-hour rolling average catalyst inlet 
temperature used for compliance with the catalyst inlet temperature 
operating limitation. Our information is that shutdown periods are 
usually brief and there is no information that the catalyst temperature 
would fall below the required levels while the turbine is still 
operating. Since compliance with the operating limitation is 
demonstrated on a 4-hour rolling average, factoring in brief periods of 
shutdown should not result in exceedances of the operating limitation.
    With respect to malfunctions, the EPA is not establishing separate 
emission standards for periods of malfunction and the formaldehyde 
emission standards and the associated catalyst inlet temperature 
monitoring requirements apply during periods of malfunction. Therefore, 
we did not accept the commenter's recommendation that the catalyst 
inlet temperature during a malfunction should be excluded from the 
calculation of the 4-hour rolling average catalyst inlet temperature. 
The EPA also notes that catalyst inlet temperatures may not be affected 
by all types of malfunction. In addition, as discussed in the proposed 
rule, if a source fails to comply with a requirement as a result of a 
malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response and 
if the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement action 
against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, 
the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action. 
Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of 
the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good 
faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations. U.S. 
Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?
    For the reasons explained in the proposed rule (84 FR 15046), these 
amendments revise provisions related to SSM that are not consistent 
with the requirement that the standards must apply at all times. We 
evaluated all of the comments received on the EPA's

[[Page 13536]]

proposed amendments to the SSM provisions and made some changes to the 
proposed amendments for the reasons stated above and in the Summary of 
Public Comments and Responses document. We are finalizing the proposed 
amendments to revise provisions related to SSM, as revised based on 
public comments.

D. Electronic Reporting Requirements for the Stationary Combustion 
Turbines Source Category

1. What did we propose for the Stationary Combustion Turbines source 
category?
    The April 12, 2019, proposal included requirements for owners and 
operators of stationary combustion turbines subject to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart YYYY to submit electronic copies of required performance test 
results and semiannual compliance reports through the EPA's CDX using 
CEDRI. The original 2004 rule did not include any requirements for 
electronic reporting.
2. How did the electronic reporting requirements change for the 
Stationary Combustion Turbines source category?
    The proposed amendments to require owners and operators to submit 
performance test results and semiannual compliance reports through the 
EPA's CDX using CEDRI are being finalized with minor corrections and 
clarifications. The language at 40 CFR 63.6150(a) was amended from the 
proposal to specify that the electronic report submitted semiannually 
also incorporates the excess emissions and monitoring system 
performance reports. The delegation of authority provision at 40 CFR 
63.6170(c) was amended to specify that the EPA does not delegate the 
authority to modify electronic reporting requirements to states, to 
ensure that the reported information is submitted to the EPA. Table 7 
of 40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYY was modified to make inapplicable the 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.13 for submission of additional copies to the 
EPA Regional office for electronically submitted reports.
3. What key comments did we receive on the electronic reporting 
requirements, and what are our responses?
    Comment: Commenters stated that the electronic reporting provisions 
should clarify the electronic reporting requirements as they relate to 
reports submitted to state agencies and should consider the increase in 
burden if owners/operators must submit reports to both entities rather 
than submitting one combined report to their delegated authority.
    One commenter stated that as proposed, the owner/operator would be 
required to submit one report to the EPA through the CEDRI system and 
then be required to prepare a written report for state agencies such as 
the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to satisfy the regulatory 
reporting obligation, thus creating a redundant reporting requirement. 
The commenter requested that the final rule clarify whether the 
electronic reporting requirement also applies to affected sources that 
are not currently required to submit copies of reports to the EPA 
because they are located in states like Texas that have received 
delegation for NESHAP under 40 CFR part 63.
    One commenter stated that when developing electronic reporting 
provisions, the EPA should work with other regulatory authorities 
(i.e., states, local agencies) to establish comparable or compatible 
electronic systems. The commenter noted that companies reporting 
electronically to the EPA will likely still have to submit hardcopy 
reports to other agencies that do not have electronic systems, thereby 
reducing or eliminating any burden savings associated with EPA 
electronic reporting. In one example, based on the template structure, 
an annual number for landfill gas fuel rate and heating values would be 
supplied to the EPA but monthly values would still have to be supplied 
to the state.
    One commenter stated that if the EPA finalizes a requirement for 
submission of electronic reports to CEDRI, the EPA should make 
inapplicable the requirement in 40 CFR 63.13 for submission of 
additional copies to the EPA Regional office. According to the 
commenter, submission to CEDRI should be deemed compliance with that 
requirement, because EPA Regional employees can access the reports on 
CEDRI. The commenter recommended that the EPA also should include a 
procedure for state agencies to similarly opt out of receiving a paper 
copy.
    Similarly, one commenter noted that the EPA did not add an 
additional burden related to the requirement to report emissions test 
data using the ERT within the Supporting Statement for the Information 
Collection Request. The commenter stated that most state or local 
permitting authorities will still require submittal of a paper copy of 
the test report, so the ERT entry and electronic submittal to the EPA 
does not replace the submittal of a test report to the local agency.
    Response: To clarify the EPA's intent that electronic reporting is 
required for all sources subject to the subpart, regardless of state, 
local, or tribal reporting requirements, the final rule has been 
amended at 63.6170(c) to add (6), that the EPA does not delegate 
authority for electronic reporting requirements. The EPA is not 
delegating the authority in order to ensure that the information 
required to be reported is received by the EPA. The reported 
information is needed for several purposes, including assessing 
compliance, developing emission factors (in the case of emissions 
data), and future reviews of the NESHAP. Table 7 has been revised for 
the final rule to reflect that 63.13(a) is only applicable to those 
reports not required to be submitted electronically.
    We acknowledge that certain sources may be required to submit a 
report electronically through CEDRI and a hard copy report to an air 
agency that has delegation to enforce the NESHAP. The ERT is designed 
to provide PDF or printed copies of reports, and these copies can be 
mailed to an air agency that does not wish to use the EPA's electronic 
reporting system. The burden associated with creating an emission test 
report is incorporated in the cost of the emission test presented in 
the Supporting Statement for the Information Collection Request (Docket 
ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0688-0073). This includes the development 
of the test report through the ERT.
    The EPA routinely discusses electronic reporting with air agencies 
and EPA Regional offices. Quarterly calls are conducted with EPA 
Regional offices to provide information that will be helpful in their 
outreach efforts to the air agencies in their regions. The EPA has 
performed demonstrations of the CEDRI reporting program and the ERT for 
EPA Regional offices and their associated air agencies, as well as for 
air agency groups like the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management 
Association.
    Additionally, through the E-Enterprise's Combined Air Emissions 
Reporting (CAER) project, the EPA is working with air agencies to 
streamline multiple emissions reporting processes. Currently, air 
emissions information is collected by the EPA and air agencies through 
numerous separate regulations, in a variety of formats, according to 
different reporting schedules, and using multiple routes of data 
transfer. The CAER project seeks to reduce the cost to industry and 
government for providing and managing important environmental data. 
More information on CAER can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/e-enterprise/e-enterprise-combined-air-emissions-reporting-caer.

[[Page 13537]]

4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the electronic 
reporting requirements?
    The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the proposed electronic 
reporting requirements for this subpart. For the reasons explained in 
the proposed rule and this final rule, including the document in the 
docket summarizing the public comments and our responses,\7\ we are 
finalizing the amendments with minor changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
from Stationary Combustion Turbines (40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYY) 
Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments, Summary of 
Public Comments and Responses on Proposed Rule, January 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional 
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected facilities?

    The EPA has identified 777 turbines at 243 facilities that are 
currently subject to the Stationary Combustion Turbines NESHAP. We are 
projecting that 51 new stationary combustion turbines at 20 facilities 
will become subject to the NESHAP over the next 3 years. The 51 new 
turbines include 48 natural gas-fired units, one oil-fired unit, and 
two landfill gas or digester gas-fired units. More information about 
the number of new turbines projected over the next 3 years can be found 
in the Projected Number of Turbine Units and Facilities Subject to the 
Stationary Combustion Turbine National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air (NESHAP) memorandum in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0688).

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The baseline emissions of HAP for 777 stationary combustion 
turbines at 243 facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYY are 
estimated to be 5,466 tpy. The HAP that is emitted in the largest 
quantity is formaldehyde. The final amendments will require turbines 
subject to the Stationary Combustion Turbines NESHAP to operate without 
the SSM exemption. We were unable to quantify emission reductions 
associated with eliminating the SSM exemption. However, eliminating the 
SSM exemption will reduce emissions by requiring facilities to meet the 
applicable standard during periods of SSM. We are not making any other 
revisions to the emission limits, so there are no other air quality 
impacts as a result of the final amendments.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    Owners or operators of stationary combustion turbines that are 
subject to the amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYY, will incur 
costs to review the final rule. Nationwide annual costs associated with 
reviewing the final rule are estimated to be a total of $42,362 (2017 
dollars) for the first year after the final rule only, or approximately 
$174 (2017 dollars) per facility. We do not expect that the amendments 
revising the SSM provisions and requiring electronic reporting will 
impose additional burden and may result in a cost savings.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and 
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the 
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may 
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with a 
proposed rule and the distribution of these costs among affected 
facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in 
response to a proposed rule. The total costs associated with reviewing 
the final rule are estimated to be $42,362 (2017 dollars), or $174 
(2017 dollars) per facility, for the first year after the final rule. 
These costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact, 
regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed 
by the firms.

E. What are the benefits?

    The EPA is not making changes to the emission limits and estimates 
that the changes to the SSM requirements and requirements for 
electronic reporting are not economically significant. Because these 
amendments are not considered economically significant, as defined by 
Executive Order 12866, and because no emission reductions were 
projected, we did not estimate any benefits from reducing emissions.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, to examine the 
potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated 
with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis, which is 
an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the 
populations living within 5 kilometers (km) and within 50 km of the 
facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-
related cancer and noncancer risks from the Stationary Combustion 
Turbines source category across different demographic groups within the 
populations living near facilities. The results of this analysis 
indicated that this action does not have disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, 
low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples. The documentation 
for this decision is contained in section IV.A of the preamble to the 
proposed rule and the technical report titled Risk and Technology 
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near 
Stationary Combustion Turbines Source Category Operations, which is 
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0688).

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    This action's health and risk assessments are contained in sections 
IV.A and B of this preamble and further documented in the risk report 
titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Stationary Combustion Turbines 
Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final 
Rule, which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0688).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

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

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden 
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection 
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB 
control number 2060-0540. We do not expect that the final amendments 
revising the SSM provisions and requiring electronic reporting will 
impose additional burden

[[Page 13538]]

not already accounted for under the existing approved burden.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The 
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small 
energy companies or governmental jurisdictions. The Agency has 
determined that 10 small entities representing approximately 4 percent 
of the total number of entities subject to the final rule may 
experience an impact of less than 0.1 percent of revenues.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes 
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the 
private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. None of the stationary combustion turbines that 
have been identified as being affected by this action are owned or 
operated by tribal governments or located within tribal lands. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in 
sections III.A and B and sections IV.A and B of this preamble, and 
further documented in the risk document.

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

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA has decided to 
use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10 (1981), ``Flue and Exhaust Gas 
Analyses'' (the manual portion only) as an alternative to EPA Method 3B 
and to incorporate the alternative method by reference. The ANSI/ASME 
PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10 (1981) method incorporates both manual and 
instrumental methodologies for the determination of O2 
content. The manual method segment of the O2 determination 
is performed through the absorption of O2. The method is 
reasonably available from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 
at http://www.asme.org; by mail at Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 
10016-5990; or by telephone at (800) 843-2763. The EPA has decided to 
use ASTM D6522-11, ``Standard Test Method for the Determination of 
Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen Concentrations in 
Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating Engines, Combustion 
Turbines, Boilers and Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers'' as an 
alternative to EPA Method 3A for turbines fueled by natural gas and to 
incorporate the alternative method by reference. The ASTM D6522-11 
method is an electrochemical cell based portable analyzer method which 
may be used for the determination of NOX, CO, and 
O2 in emission streams form stationary sources. Also, 
instead of the current ASTM D6348-12e1 standard (``Determination of 
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform 
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy''), the Stationary Combustion Turbines 
NESHAP currently references ASTM D6348-03 as an alternative to EPA 
Method 320. We are updating the NESHAP to reference the most current 
version of the ASTM D6348 method as an alternative to EPA Method 320. 
When using this method, the test plan preparation and implementation 
requirements in Annexes A1 through A8 to ASTM D6348-12e1 are mandatory. 
The ASTM D6348-12e1 method is an extractive FTIR spectroscopy-based 
field test method and is used to quantify gas phase concentrations of 
multiple target compounds in emission streams from stationary sources. 
The ASTM standards are reasonably available from the American Society 
for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, 
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See http://www.astm.org/.
    The EPA identified an additional seven voluntary consensus 
standards (VCS) as being potentially applicable to this rule. After 
reviewing the available standards, the EPA determined that the seven 
VCS would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, 
validation data, and/or other important technical and policy 
considerations. For further information, see the memorandum titled 
Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Stationary Combustion Turbines Risk and 
Technology, in the docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0688).

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of 
this preamble and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review 
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Stationary 
Combustion Turbines Source Category Operations.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: January 31, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR 
part 63 as follows:

[[Page 13539]]

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(1) and (h)(85), 
redesignating paragraphs (h)(94) through (111) as (h)(95) through 
(112), and adding new paragraph (h)(94) to read as follows.


Sec.  63.14   Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  63.309(k), 63.457(k), 63.772(e) and (h), 63.865(b), 
63.1282(d) and (g), 63.1625(b), 63.3166(a), 63.3360(e), 63.3545(a), 
63.3555(a), 63.4166(a), 63.4362(a), 63.4766(a), 63.4965(a), 63.5160(d), 
table 4 to subpart UUUU, table 3 to subpart YYYY, 63.9307(c), 
63.9323(a), 63.11148(e), 63.11155(e), 63.11162(f), 63.11163(g), 
63.11410(j), 63.11551(a), 63.11646(a), and 63.11945, table 5 to subpart 
DDDDD, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart KKKKK, tables 4 and 
5 to subpart UUUUU, table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ, and table 4 to subpart 
JJJJJJ.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (85) ASTM D6348-12e1, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform 
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, IBR approved 
for Sec.  63.1571(a) and table 3 to subpart YYYY.
* * * * *
    (94) ASTM D6522-11, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen Concentrations in 
Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating Engines, Combustion 
Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers, 
Approved December 1, 2011, IBR approved for table 3 to subpart YYYY.
* * * * *

Subpart YYYY--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Stationary Combustion Turbines

0
3. Revise Sec.  63.6105 to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6105   What are my general requirements for complying with 
this subpart?

    (a) Before September 8, 2020, you must be in compliance with the 
emission limitations and operating limitations which apply to you at 
all times except during startup, shutdown, and malfunctions. After 
September 8, 2020, you must be in compliance with the emission 
limitations, operating limitations, and other requirements in this 
subpart which apply to you at all times.
    (b) Before September 8, 2020, if you must comply with emission and 
operating limitations, you must operate and maintain your stationary 
combustion turbine, oxidation catalyst emission control device or other 
air pollution control equipment, and monitoring equipment in a manner 
consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions at all times including during startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction.
    (c) After September 8, 2020, at all times, the owner or operator 
must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air 
pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner 
consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for 
minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not 
require the owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce 
emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been 
achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance 
with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on 
information available to the Administrator which may include, but is 
not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance 
procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection 
of the source.

0
4. Section 63.6120 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.6120   What performance tests and other procedures must I use?

* * * * *
    (b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the 
requirements in Table 3 of this subpart. Before September 8, 2020, each 
performance test must be conducted according to the requirements of the 
General Provisions at Sec.  63.7(e)(1).
    (c) Performance tests must be conducted at high load, defined as 
100 percent plus or minus 10 percent. Before September 8, 2020, do not 
conduct performance tests or compliance evaluations during periods of 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction. After September 8, 2020, performance 
tests shall be conducted under such conditions based on representative 
performance of the affected source for the period being tested. 
Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. The 
owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of 
malfunction. The owner or operator must record the process information 
that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and 
include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions 
represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall 
make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to 
determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.6125 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.6125   What are my monitor installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements?

* * * * *
    (e) After September 8, 2020, if you are required to use a 
continuous monitoring system (CMS), you must develop and implement a 
CMS quality control program that included written procedures for CMS 
according to Sec.  63.8(d)(1) through (2). You must keep these written 
procedures on record for the life of the affected source or until the 
affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to 
be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. 
If the performance evaluation plan is revised, the owner or operator 
shall keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance 
evaluation plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon 
request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each 
revision to the plan. The program of corrective action should be 
included in the plan required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).

0
6. Section 63.6140 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.6140   How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission and operating limitations?

* * * * *
    (c) Before September 8, 2020, consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) 
and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction are not violations if you have operated your 
stationary combustion turbine in accordance with Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i).

0
7. Section 63.6150 is amended by:

[[Page 13540]]

0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text, paragraph (a)(4) 
introductory text, paragraph (c) introductory text, and paragraph (e) 
introductory text, and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (a)(5), (f), (g), (h) and (i).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.6150   What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) Compliance report. Anyone who owns or operates a stationary 
combustion turbine which must meet the emission limitation for 
formaldehyde must submit a semiannual compliance report according to 
Table 6 of this subpart. The semiannual compliance report must contain 
the information described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this 
section. The semiannual compliance report, including the excess 
emissions and monitoring system performance reports of Sec.  
63.10(e)(3), must be submitted by the dates specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (5) of this section, unless the Administrator has 
approved a different schedule. After September 8, 2020, or once the 
reporting template has been available on the Compliance and Emissions 
Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) website for 180 days, whichever date 
is later, you must submit all subsequent reports to the EPA following 
the procedure specified in paragraph (g) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) Before September 8, 2020, for each deviation from an emission 
limitation, the compliance report must contain the information in 
paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (5) After September 8, 2020, report each deviation in the 
semiannual compliance report. Report the information specified in 
paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Report the number of deviations. For each instance, report the 
start date, start time, duration, and cause of each deviation, and the 
corrective action taken.
    (ii) For each deviation, the report must include a list of the 
affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each 
regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, a description of 
the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (iii) Information on the number, duration, and cause for monitor 
downtime incidents (including unknown cause, if applicable, other than 
downtime associated with zero and span and other daily calibration 
checks), as applicable, and the corrective action taken.
    (iv) Report the total operating time of the affected source during 
the reporting period.
* * * * *
    (c) If you are operating as a stationary combustion turbine which 
fires landfill gas or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of 
the gross heat input on an annual basis, or a stationary combustion 
turbine where gasified MSW is used to generate 10 percent or more of 
the gross heat input on an annual basis, you must submit an annual 
report according to Table 6 of this subpart by the date specified 
unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule, according 
to the information described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this 
section. You must report the data specified in (c)(1) through (3) of 
this section. After September 8, 2020, you must submit all subsequent 
reports to the EPA following the procedure specified in paragraph (g) 
of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) If you are operating a lean premix gas-fired stationary 
combustion turbine or a diffusion flame gas-fired stationary combustion 
turbine as defined by this subpart, and you use any quantity of 
distillate oil to fire any new or existing stationary combustion 
turbine which is located at the same major source, you must submit an 
annual report according to Table 6 of this subpart by the date 
specified unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule, 
according to the information described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) 
of this section. You must report the data specified in (e)(1) through 
(3) of this section. After September 8, 2020, you must submit all 
subsequent reports to the EPA following the procedure specified in 
paragraph (g) of this section.
* * * * *
    (f) Performance test report. After September 8, 2020, within 60 
days after the date of completing each performance test required by 
this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test (as 
specified in Sec.  63.6145(f)) following the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the 
performance test to the EPA via the CEDRI, which can be accessed 
through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). 
The data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use 
of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file 
consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on 
the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the 
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. 
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment 
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated 
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of 
the information submitted under paragraph (f)(1) of this section is 
CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to 
be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the 
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact 
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and 
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy 
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file 
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as 
described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
    (g) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure 
specified in this paragraph, you must submit reports to the EPA via 
CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report template 
on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for 
this subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed 
on the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by the deadline 
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report 
is submitted. If you claim some of the information required to be 
submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a complete report, including 
information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated 
using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a 
compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage 
medium and clearly mark the medium

[[Page 13541]]

as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, 
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old 
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be 
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this 
paragraph.
    (h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for 
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a 
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in 
paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an 
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time 
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is 
due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow 
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion 
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (i) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for 
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a 
claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in 
paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior 
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a 
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such 
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), 
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond 
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.

0
8. Section 63.6155 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 
text and paragraphs (a)(3) through (5) and adding paragraphs (a)(6), 
(a)(7), and (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.6155   What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep the records as described in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (7) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) Before September 8, 2020, records of the occurrence and 
duration of each startup, shutdown, or malfunction as required in Sec.  
63.10(b)(2)(i).
    (4) Before September 8, 2020, records of the occurrence and 
duration of each malfunction of the air pollution control equipment, if 
applicable, as required in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(ii).
    (5) Records of all maintenance on the air pollution control 
equipment as required in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(iii).
    (6) After September 8, 2020, records of the date, time, and 
duration of each startup period, recording the periods when the 
affected source was subject to the standard applicable to startup.
    (7) After September 8, 2020, keep records as follows.
    (i) Record the number of deviations. For each deviation, record the 
date, time, cause, and duration of the deviation.
    (ii) For each deviation, record and retain a list of the affected 
sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated 
pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the 
method used to estimate the emissions.
    (iii) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with 
Sec.  63.6105(c), and any corrective actions taken to return the 
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
    (d) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are 
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in 
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not 
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and 
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as 
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.

0
9. Section 63.6170 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(6) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.6170   Who implements and enforces this subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (6) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the 
EPA required by this subpart.
* * * * *

0
10. Section 63.6175 is amended by revising the definition for 
``Deviation'' and adding a definition for ``Startup'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.6175   What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation or 
operating limitation;
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an

[[Page 13542]]

applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the 
operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a 
permit;
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limitation or operating limitation 
in this subpart during malfunction, regardless of whether or not such 
failure is permitted by this subpart;
    (4) Before September 8, 2020, fails to satisfy the general duty to 
minimize emissions established by Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i), or
    (5) After September 8, 2020, fails to satisfy the general duty to 
minimize emissions established by Sec.  63.6105.
* * * * *
    Startup begins at the first firing of fuel in the stationary 
combustion turbine. For simple cycle turbines, startup ends when the 
stationary combustion turbine has reached stable operation or after 1 
hour, whichever is less. For combined cycle turbines, startup ends when 
the stationary combustion turbine has reached stable operation or after 
3 hours, whichever is less. Turbines in combined cycle configurations 
that are operating as simple cycle turbines must meet the startup 
requirements for simple cycle turbines while operating as simple cycle 
turbines.
* * * * *

0
11. Table 1 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 1 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63--Emission Limitations

    As stated in Sec.  63.6100, you must comply with the following 
emission limitations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   For each new or reconstructed
   stationary combustion turbine         You must meet the following
 described in Sec.   63.6100 which        emission limitations . . .
              is . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. a lean premix gas-fired           limit the concentration of
 stationary combustion turbine as     formaldehyde to 91 ppbvd or less
 defined in this subpart,             at 15-percent O2, except during
2. a lean premix oil-fired            turbine startup. The period of
 stationary combustion turbine as     time for turbine startup is
 defined in this subpart,             subject to the limits specified in
3. a diffusion flame gas-fired        the definition of startup in Sec.
 stationary combustion turbine as      63.6175.
 defined in this subpart, or
4. a diffusion flame oil-fired
 stationary combustion turbine as
 defined in this subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
12. Table 2 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 2 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63--Operating Limitations

    As stated in Sec. Sec.  63.6100 and 63.6140, you must comply with 
the following operating limitations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               For . . .                          You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. each stationary combustion turbine    maintain the 4-hour rolling
 that is required to comply with the      average of the catalyst inlet
 emission limitation for formaldehyde     temperature within the range
 and is using an oxidation catalyst.      suggested by the catalyst
                                          manufacturer. You are not
                                          required to use the catalyst
                                          inlet temperature data that is
                                          recorded during engine startup
                                          in the calculations of the 4-
                                          hour rolling average catalyst
                                          inlet temperature.
2. each stationary combustion turbine    maintain any operating
 that is required to comply with the      limitations approved by the
 emission limitation for formaldehyde     Administrator.
 and is not using an oxidation catalyst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
13. Table 3 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 3 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63--Requirements for Performance Tests 
and Initial Compliance Demonstrations

    As stated in Sec.  63.6120, you must comply with the following 
requirements for performance tests and initial compliance 
demonstrations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      According to the
       You must . . .              Using . . .            following
                                                     requirements . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. demonstrate formaldehyde   Test Method 320 of    formaldehyde
 emissions meet the emission   40 CFR part 63,       concentration must
 limitations specified in      appendix A; ASTM      be corrected to 15-
 Table 1 by a performance      D6348-12e1 \1\        percent O2, dry
 test initially and on an      provided that the     basis. Results of
 annual basis AND.             test plan             this test consist
                               preparation and       of the average of
                               implementation        the three 1-hour
                               provisions of         runs. Test must be
                               Annexes A1 through    conducted within 10
                               A8 are followed and   percent of 100-
                               the %R as             percent load.
                               determined in Annex
                               A5 is equal or
                               greater than 70%
                               and less than or
                               equal to 130%; \2\
                               or other methods
                               approved by the
                               Administrator.
b. select the sampling port   Method 1 or 1A of 40  if using an air
 location and the number of    CFR part 60,          pollution control
 traverse points AND.          appendix A.           device, the
                                                     sampling site must
                                                     be located at the
                                                     outlet of the air
                                                     pollution control
                                                     device.
c. determine the O2           Method 3A or 3B of    measurements to
 concentration at the          40 CFR part 60,       determine O2
 sampling port location AND.   appendix A; ANSI/     concentration must
                               ASME PTC 19.10-1981   be made at the same
                               \1\ (Part 10)         time as the
                               manual portion        performance test.
                               only; ASTM D6522-11
                               \1\ if the turbine
                               is fueled by
                               natural gas.

[[Page 13543]]

 
d. determine the moisture     Method 4 of 40 CFR    measurements to
 content at the sampling       part 60, appendix A   determine moisture
 port location for the         or Test Method 320    content must be
 purposes of correcting the    of 40 CFR part 63,    made at the same
 formaldehyde concentration    appendix A, or ASTM   time as the
 to a dry basis.               D6348-12e1 \1\.       performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec.   63.14.
\2\ The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report,
  and all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R
  value for that compound using the following equation:
Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in Stack)/(%R)) x 100.


0
14. Table 7 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 7 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions 
to Subpart YYYY

    You must comply with the applicable General Provisions 
requirements:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Citation                     Subject             Applies to subpart YYYY            Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1..................  General applicability of  Yes..........................  Additional terms defined
                                the General Provisions.                                  in Sec.   63.6175.
Sec.   63.2..................  Definitions.............  Yes..........................  Additional terms defined
                                                                                         in Sec.   63.6175.
Sec.   63.3..................  Units and abbreviations.  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.4..................  Prohibited activities...  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.5..................  Construction and          Yes..........................
                                reconstruction.
Sec.   63.6(a)...............  Applicability...........  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(4)........  Compliance dates for new  Yes..........................
                                and reconstructed
                                sources.
Sec.   63.6(b)(5)............  Notification............  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.6(b)(6)............  [Reserved]..............
Sec.   63.6(b)(7)............  Compliance dates for new  Yes..........................
                                and reconstructed area
                                sources that become
                                major.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2)........  Compliance dates for      Yes..........................
                                existing sources.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4)........  [Reserved]..............
Sec.   63.6(c)(5)............  Compliance dates for      Yes..........................
                                existing area sources
                                that become major.
Sec.   63.6(d)...............  [Reserved]..............
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i).........  General duty to minimize  Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                emissions.               No after September 8, 2020.
                                                          See Sec.   63.6105 for
                                                          general duty requirement..
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)........  Requirement to correct    Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                malfunctions ASAP.       No after September 8, 2020...
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii).......  Operation and             Yes..........................
                                Maintenance
                                Requirements.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)............  [Reserved]..............
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)............  SSMP....................  Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                                         No after September 8, 2020...
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)............  Applicability of          Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                standards except during  No after September 8, 2020...
                                startup, shutdown, or
                                malfunction (SSM).
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)............  Methods for determining   Yes..........................
                                compliance.
Sec.   63.6(f)(3)............  Finding of compliance...  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3)........  Use of alternative        Yes..........................
                                standard.
Sec.   63.6(h)...............  Opacity and visible       No...........................  Subpart YYYY does not
                                emission standards.                                      contain opacity or
                                                                                         visible emission
                                                                                         standards.
Sec.   63.6(i)...............  Compliance extension      Yes..........................
                                procedures and criteria.
Sec.   63.6(j)...............  Presidential compliance   Yes..........................
                                exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2)........  Performance test dates..  Yes..........................  Subpart YYYY contains
                                                                                         performance test dates
                                                                                         at Sec.   63.6110.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3)............  Section 114 authority...  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.7(b)(1)............  Notification of           Yes..........................
                                performance test.
Sec.   63.7(b)(2)............  Notification of           Yes..........................
                                rescheduling.

[[Page 13544]]

 
Sec.   63.7(c)...............  Quality assurance/test    Yes..........................
                                plan.
Sec.   63.7(d)...............  Testing facilities......  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)............  Conditions for            Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                conducting performance   No after September 8, 2020...
                                tests.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)............  Conduct of performance    Yes..........................  Subpart YYYY specifies
                                tests and reduction of                                   test methods at Sec.
                                data.                                                    63.6120.
Sec.   63.7(e)(3)............  Test run duration.......  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.7(e)(4)............  Administrator may         Yes..........................
                                require other testing
                                under section 114 of
                                the CAA.
Sec.   63.7(f)...............  Alternative test method   Yes..........................
                                provisions.
Sec.   63.7(g)...............  Performance test data     Yes..........................
                                analysis,
                                recordkeeping, and
                                reporting.
Sec.   63.7(h)...............  Waiver of tests.........  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)............  Applicability of          Yes..........................  Subpart YYYY contains
                                monitoring requirements.                                 specific requirements
                                                                                         for monitoring at Sec.
                                                                                          63.6125.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2)............  Performance               Yes..........................
                                specifications.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)............  [Reserved]..............
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)............  Monitoring for control    No...........................
                                devices.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1)............  Monitoring..............  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.8(b)(2)-(3)........  Multiple effluents and    Yes..........................
                                multiple monitoring
                                systems.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)............  Monitoring system         Yes..........................
                                operation and
                                maintenance.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i).........  General duty to minimize  Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                emissions and CMS        No after September 8, 2020...
                                operation.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)........  Parts for repair of CMS   Yes..........................
                                readily available.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii).......  Requirement to develop    Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                SSM Plan for CMS.        No after September 8, 2020...
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)........  Monitoring system         Yes..........................
                                installation.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)............  Continuous monitoring     Yes..........................  Except that subpart YYYY
                                system (CMS)                                             does not require
                                requirements.                                            continuous opacity
                                                                                         monitoring systems
                                                                                         (COMS).
Sec.   63.8(c)(5)............  COMS minimum procedures.  No...........................
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)-(8)........  CMS requirements........  Yes..........................  Except that subpart YYYY
                                                                                         does not require COMS.
Sec.   63.8(d)(1)-(2)........  CMS quality control.....  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.8(d)(3)............  Written procedures for    Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                CMS.                     No after September 8, 2020...
Sec.   63.8(e)...............  CMS performance           Yes..........................  Except for Sec.
                                evaluation.                                              63.8(e)(5)(ii), which
                                                                                         applies to COMS.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)........  Alternative monitoring    Yes..........................
                                method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)............  Alternative to relative   Yes..........................
                                accuracy test.
Sec.   63.8(g)...............  Data reduction..........  Yes..........................  Except that provisions
                                                                                         for COMS are not
                                                                                         applicable. Averaging
                                                                                         periods for
                                                                                         demonstrating
                                                                                         compliance are
                                                                                         specified at Sec.  Sec.
                                                                                           63.6135 and 63.6140.
Sec.   63.9(a)...............  Applicability and State   Yes..........................
                                delegation of
                                notification
                                requirements.
Sec.   63.9(b)(1)-(5)........  Initial notifications...  Yes..........................  Except that Sec.
                                                                                         63.9(b)(3) is reserved.
Sec.   63.9(c)...............  Request for compliance    Yes..........................
                                extension.
Sec.   63.9(d)...............  Notification of special   Yes..........................
                                compliance requirements
                                for new sources.
Sec.   63.9(e)...............  Notification of           Yes..........................
                                performance test.
Sec.   63.9(f)...............  Notification of visible   No...........................  Subpart YYYY does not
                                emissions/opacity test.                                  contain opacity or VE
                                                                                         standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)(1)............  Notification of           Yes..........................
                                performance evaluation.

[[Page 13545]]

 
Sec.   63.9(g)(2)............  Notification of use of    No...........................  Subpart YYYY does not
                                COMS data.                                               contain opacity or VE
                                                                                         standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)(3)............  Notification that         Yes..........................
                                criterion for
                                alternative to relative
                                accuracy test audit
                                (RATA) is exceeded.
Sec.   63.9(h)...............  Notification of           Yes..........................  Except that
                                compliance status.                                       notifications for
                                                                                         sources not conducting
                                                                                         performance tests are
                                                                                         due 30 days after
                                                                                         completion of
                                                                                         performance
                                                                                         evaluations. Sec.
                                                                                         63.9(h)(4) is reserved.
Sec.   63.9(i)...............  Adjustment of submittal   Yes..........................
                                deadlines.
Sec.   63.9(j)...............  Change in previous        Yes..........................
                                information.
Sec.   63.10(a)..............  Administrative            Yes..........................
                                provisions for
                                recordkeeping and
                                reporting.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)...........  Record retention........  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)........  Recordkeeping of          Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                occurrence and duration  No after September 8, 2020...
                                of startups and
                                shutdowns.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii).......  Recordkeeping of          Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                failures to meet a       No after September 8, 2020.
                                standard.                 See Sec.   63.6155 for
                                                          recordkeeping of (1) date,
                                                          time and duration; (2)
                                                          listing of affected source
                                                          or equipment, and an
                                                          estimate of the quantity of
                                                          each regulated pollutant
                                                          emitted over the standard;
                                                          and (3) actions to minimize
                                                          emissions and correct the
                                                          failure..
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)......  Maintenance records.....  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)...  Records related to        Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                actions during SSM.      No after September 8, 2020...
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xi)..  CMS records.............  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii)......  Record when under waiver  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii).....  Records when using        Yes..........................
                                alternative to RATA.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv)......  Records of supporting     Yes..........................
                                documentation.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)...........  Records of applicability  Yes..........................
                                determination.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(14)......  Additional records for    Yes..........................  Except that Sec.
                                sources using CMS.                                       63.10(c)(2)-(4) and (9)
                                                                                         are reserved.
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)..........  Use of SSM Plan.........  Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                                         No after September 8, 2020...
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)...........  General reporting         Yes..........................
                                requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)...........  Report of performance     Yes..........................
                                test results.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)...........  Reporting opacity or VE   No...........................  Subpart YYYY does not
                                observations.                                            contain opacity or VE
                                                                                         standards.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)...........  Progress reports........  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)...........  Startup, shutdown, and    No. After September 8, 2020,
                                malfunction reports.      see 63.6150(a) for
                                                          malfunction reporting
                                                          requirements.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1) and (2)(i)  Additional CMS reports..  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.10(e)(2)(ii).......  COMS-related report.....  No...........................  Subpart YYYY does not
                                                                                         require COMS.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)...........  Excess emissions and      Yes..........................  After September 8, 2020
                                parameter exceedances                                    submitted with the
                                reports.                                                 compliance report
                                                                                         through CEDRI according
                                                                                         to Sec.   63.6150(a).
Sec.   63.10(e)(4)...........  Reporting COMS data.....  No...........................  Subpart YYYY does not
                                                                                         require COMS.
Sec.   63.10(f)..............  Waiver for recordkeeping  Yes..........................
                                and reporting.
Sec.   63.11.................  Flares..................  No...........................
Sec.   63.12.................  State authority and       Yes..........................
                                delegations.

[[Page 13546]]

 
Sec.   63.13.................  Addresses...............  Yes..........................  After September 8, 2020
                                                                                         not applicable to
                                                                                         reports required to be
                                                                                         submitted through CEDRI
                                                                                         by 63.6150(c), (e),
                                                                                         (f), or (g).
Sec.   63.14.................  Incorporation by          Yes..........................
                                reference.
Sec.   63.15.................  Availability of           Yes..........................
                                information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-02714 Filed 3-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


