[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 46 (Monday, March 9, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13524-13546]
[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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and
the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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:

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:

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

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