[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46210-46211]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18479]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0499; FRL-9914-55-Region-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Revisions to the Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia for the purpose of revising the definition of
volatile organic compounds. In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the Commonwealth's SIP submittals as a
direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this
as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action,
no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments,
the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments
received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by September 8, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2014-0499 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-XXXX, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director,

Office of Air Program Planning, Air Protection Division, Mailcode
3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2014-0499. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI 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 in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    For further information, please see the information provided in the
direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the
``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register publication.

     Dated: July 11, 2014.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2014-18479 Filed 8-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71258-71259]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27152]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2368-000]

Algonquin Northern Maine Generating Company; Notice of
Authorization for Continued Project Operation

    On December 3, 2019, Algonquin Northern Maine Generating Company,
licensee for the Scopan Hydroelectric Project No. 2368, filed an
application for a Subsequent License pursuant to the Federal Power Act
(FPA) and the Commission's regulations thereunder. The Scopan
Hydroelectric Project is located on Scopan Stream in Aroostook County,
Maine.
    The license for Project No.2368 was issued for a period ending
December 3, 2021. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1),
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue
from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee(s) under the
terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior
license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based
on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

558(c), and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such
project has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee
may continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2368 is issued to
Algonquin Northern Maine Generating Company for a period effective
December 4, 2021 through December 3, 2022, or until the issuance of a
new license for the project or other disposition under the FPA,
whichever comes first. If issuance of a new license (or other
disposition) does not take place on or before December 3, 2022, notice
is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license
under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed automatically without
further order or notice by the Commission, unless the Commission orders
otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that Algonquin Northern Maine Generating Company, is
authorized to continue operation of the Scopan Hydroelectric Project,
until such time as the Commission takes final action on the application
for a subsequent license.

    Dated: December 9, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-27152 Filed 12-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13183-13192]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04848]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0688; FRL-5909.1-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV03

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Stationary Combustion Turbines; Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Stationary Combustion Turbines. This final
action removes the stay of the effectiveness of the standards for new
lean premix and diffusion flame gas-fired turbines that was promulgated
in 2004.

DATES: The final rule is effective on March 9, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0688. All documents in the docket are
listed in 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 electronically
at https://www.regulations.gov. Out of an abundance of caution for
members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading
Room are closed to the public, with limited exceptions, to reduce the
risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to
provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We
encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov/ or email, as there may be a delay in processing
mail and faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may be received by
scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA Docket
Center services and the current status, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this 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>; and email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    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 and Final Amendments
III. Public Comments and Responses
IV. Impacts of the Final Rule
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include industries using stationary combustion turbines,
such as: Electric power generation, transmission, or distribution;
Pipeline transportation of natural gas; and Crude petroleum and natural
gas extraction (North American Industry Classification System Codes
2211, 486210, 211120, 211130). This list 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 rule. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this action,
please contact the 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.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
by May 9, 2022. 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. That section of the CAA
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, 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 and Final Amendments

    The Stationary Combustion Turbine NESHAP, found at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart YYYY, was originally promulgated in 2004 (69 FR 10512; March 5,
2004). The following eight subcategories of stationary combustion
turbines were defined in the rulemaking: (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[deg] North)). 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.
    During the original Stationary Combustion Turbine NESHAP
rulemaking, the EPA received a petition from the Gas Turbine
Association in August 2002 to create and delist two subcategories of
stationary combustion turbines under CAA section 112(c)(9). The
subcategories that were called for in the petition were lean premix
combustion turbines firing natural gas with limited oil backup and a
low-risk combustion turbine subcategory where facilities would make
site-specific demonstrations regarding risk levels. Additional
information supporting the petition was provided in February 2003. On
April 7, 2004, the EPA proposed to delist lean premix gas-fired
turbines as well as three additional subcategories of turbines that
were determined to meet the criteria for delisting in CAA section
112(c)(9)(B): Diffusion flame gas-fired, emergency, and turbines
located on the North Slope of Alaska (69 FR 18327; April 7, 2004). At
the same time, the EPA proposed to stay the effectiveness of the NESHAP
for new lean premix gas-fired and diffusion flame gas-fired turbines to
``avoid wasteful and unwarranted expenditures on installation of
emission controls which will not be required if the subcategories are
delisted.'' (69 FR 18338; April 7, 2004) The standards for new oil-
fired turbines were not stayed and have been in effect. On August 18,
2004, the EPA finalized the stay of the effectiveness of the NESHAP for
new lean premix gas-fired and diffusion flame gas-fired turbines,
pending the outcome of the proposed delisting (69 FR 51184; August 18,
2004). The EPA stated that it would lift the stay if the subcategories
were not ultimately delisted, and that turbines constructed or
reconstructed after January 14, 2003, would then be subject to the
final standards. The EPA also explained that those turbines would be
given the same time to demonstrate compliance as they would have if
there had been no stay.
    The proposal to delist the four subcategories was never finalized
in light of the 2007 decision in NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1364 (D.C. Cir.
2007), which addressed limits on the EPA's ability to delist
subcategories.\1\ In the 2019 proposed residual risk and technology
review (RTR) for the Stationary Combustion Turbine NESHAP, the residual
risk analysis did not support a conclusion that the entire Stationary
Combustion Turbines source category met the criteria for delisting in
CAA section 112(c)(9)(B). The results of the inhalation risk assessment
for the proposed RTR suggested that the maximum individual cancer risk
for the source category was above 1-in-1 million. Consequently, the EPA
proposed to remove the stay of the standards for new lean premix and
diffusion flame gas-fired turbines (84 FR 15046; April 12, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The court held in NRDC v. EPA that the EPA had no authority
to create and delist a ``low-risk subcategory'' under CAA section
112(c)(9)(B)(i). 489 F.3d at 1372. According to the court, only
subcategories with no carcinogenic HAP emissions and satisfying CAA
section 112(c)(9)(B)(ii) could be removed from the CAA section
112(c)(1) list of categories and subcategories (e.g., deletion of
the non-mercury cell chlorine production subcategory, 68 FR 70947,
December 19, 2003). Otherwise, subcategories with any carcinogenic
HAP emissions could only be removed as part of a complete removal of
the entire source category under CAA section 112(c)(9)(B)(i), noting
that the criteria in CAA section 112(c)(9)(B)(ii) would also need to
be satisfied if applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the RTR was finalized on March 9, 2020, (85 FR 13525), the EPA
did not finalize the removal of the stay to allow for additional time
to review the public comments on the proposed removal of the stay, as
well as to provide time to review information in a new petition that
was submitted in August 2019 to delist the entire Stationary Combustion
Turbines source category. In 2004, the EPA had determined that a stay
was appropriate while the Agency solicited comment on a proposed
subcategory delisting to avoid unwarranted expenditures on installation
of emission controls which would not have been required if the
subcategories were delisted. In the 2020 final RTR, the Agency
determined that it would be reasonable to delay taking final action on
the proposal to lift the stay for the same reasons in light of the new
petition. However, the EPA has concluded that the new petition to
delist the source category does not warrant any further delay in
lifting the stay in light of the current status of the EPA's evaluation
of the delisting petition. The EPA has not yet completed its evaluation
of the petition or determined whether the petition is complete. If the
EPA determines that the petition is complete, the Agency will then, on
the basis of the Agency's analysis and the Administrator's discretion,
either propose to grant the petition and request further public input
or take final action to deny the petition. If a proposal to grant the
petition is issued, a subsequent rulemaking would be required to
finalize the delisting. Consequently, final action on the source
category delisting is not likely to be made in the near term.
Therefore, the EPA does not believe it is appropriate to continue to
retain the stay. In addition, the Agency has evaluated its authority
for the stay in light of recent caselaw concerning stays issued under
the authority of the CAA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
and has been unable to identify any authority for the stay in either
statute. In light of the issues concerning the legality of the 2004
stay and the uncertainty concerning the timing and outcome of the EPA's
final decision on

the delisting petition, the EPA is taking final action now to remove
the stay of the standards for new lean premix and diffusion flame gas-
fired turbines.

III. Public Comments and Responses

    This section presents a summary of the public comments received on
the proposal to lift the stay of the standards for new lean premix and
diffusion flame gas-fired turbines. The EPA received 21 public comments
on the proposal to the lift the stay. All comments are contained in the
docket for this action. The summary of comments on other elements of
the 2019 proposal and the EPA's responses can be found in the docket at
Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0688-0139.
    Comment: Some commenters supported the EPA's proposal to lift the
stay for lean premix and diffusion flame gas-fired turbines, agreeing
with the EPA's rationale for proposing to lift the stay and questioning
the EPA's authority to continue the stay.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges the comments supporting the removal
of the stay. The EPA is removing the stay in this final action and thus
no response is required for these comments.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the EPA is under no
obligation to lift the stay as part of the RTR rulemaking. One
commenter stated that, based on the EPA's original rationale for the
stay as well as practical and technological considerations, the EPA
should not take any action that would make emission limitations
effective upon the date of a final rule addressing other affected units
and the RTR provisions of the proposal. Commenters further cited the
findings of the EPA's and the delisting petitioners' risk analyses to
support addressing the stay in a separate rulemaking. Commenters noted
that there is no court-ordered deadline to lift the stay, and they
further noted there is no statutory provision mandating that every
issue related to a source category be resolved at the same time as an
RTR rulemaking. Commenters stated that it is within the EPA's
discretion to address environmental agendas piece by piece in separate
rulemakings, particularly if the pieces can be implemented
independently from one another. The commenters stated that lifting the
stay is not necessary for the EPA to finalize the proposed revisions
resulting from the RTR and the SSM exemption removal. The commenters
noted that the EPA has previously severed portions of proposed
rulemakings that require further deliberation and analysis into
separate final actions; one commenter cited the state implementation
plans (SIP) for Delaware and New Mexico as examples.
    Response: The EPA did not finalize the proposal to lift the stay or
take action to make the stayed standards effective when the final RTR
was promulgated on March 9, 2020 (85 FR 13524). The EPA indicated in
the Federal Register document for the final RTR that the Agency was not
finalizing the proposed removal of the stay to allow for additional
time to review the public comments on the proposed removal of the stay,
and to review a new petition to delist the Stationary Combustion
Turbines source category. Thus, comments urging the EPA not to remove
the stay in conjunction with the RTR are moot.
    Comment: One commenter stated that, based on a review of the
documents in the public record associated with this proposal, it
appears that the EPA may have intended to solely address the results of
the RTR and not to propose to alter the status of the existing stay,
but it is not clear. Commenters noted that the EPA proposed to amend 40
CFR 63.6095(d) by deleting the language about the stay for natural gas-
fired turbines, and the preamble stated that the EPA was proposing to
remove the stay of the effectiveness of the standards for new lean
premix and diffusion flame gas-fired turbines. However, the commenter
asserted that the supporting statement indicated that the EPA assumed
that the proposed lifting of the stay will be finalized by Year 2 and
did not include Year 1 notification, testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting costs for units that would be impacted by
the lifting of the stay. In addition, the commenter noted that proposed
40 CFR 63.6110 referenced ``the date the stay . . . is removed from
this subpart'' rather than the date that the proposed rule is
finalized. The commenter suggested that the EPA should clarify its
intent regarding the status of the stay and stated that the stay should
remain in effect and be addressed, if necessary, through separate
rulemaking action.
    Response: The preamble to the proposed rule clearly indicated that
the EPA was proposing to remove the stay. The proposed amendments to
the regulatory text also clearly removed the stay provision from the
rule. The proposed amendments to 40 CFR 60.4110 were written in the
manner noted by commenter in the event that the removal of the stay was
finalized on a different timeline than the other proposed amendments.
The supporting statement for the original 2004 rule accounted for the
notification, testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs
and thus such costs were not counted again in the 2019 proposed rule.
    Comment: Other commenters raised cost and risk issues in arguing
that the EPA should not finalize the proposal to lift the stay for lean
premix and diffusion flame gas-fired turbines. One commenter asserted
that the EPA has discretion to continue the stay to address broader
statutory purposes. One commenter suggested that, in light of the fact
that the EPA has proposed not to increase the stringency of the rule
for the entire source category, the EPA may consider acting to avoid
the imposition of standards with which it may be technically or
practically impossible to comply either immediately or within 180 days.
    Two commenters stated that lifting the stay would cause significant
control installation, testing, and compliance costs for hundreds of
estimated affected turbines. One commenter asserted that these costs
are unwarranted based on the conclusions the EPA reached as part of its
residual risk review, and another commenter agreed that the low risk
results suggest that lifting the stay is not necessary. Similarly, a
commenter stated that the annual performance testing requirement would
impose large testing costs on a subcategory that was initially
considered by the EPA to warrant potential delisting and that the costs
would be passed on to their customers. A commenter also suggested that
the EPA should assess whether these standards are necessary, given the
fact that the RTR determined that stationary combustion turbines are
not adversely impacting public health or the environment.
    Similarly, one commenter stated that the stay was granted on the
basis of the EPA's worst-case exposure scenario, so owners/operators of
these turbines could reasonably assume that new or reconstructed lean
premix gas-fired turbines were highly unlikely to present a health risk
even if their formaldehyde emissions were above 91 ppbvd. The commenter
noted that no new information has been introduced in the 15 years since
the stay was issued to undercut this health-risk assessment. The
commenter acknowledged that lifting the stay is necessary because the
EPA cannot delist subcategories, but that does not invalidate the
health-risk assessment on which the decision to grant the stay was
based. The stay has been in place for 15 years, 12 of those since the
court decision invalidating delisting of subcategories. The commenter
suggested that in light of the low risk and the fact that the EPA is
not proposing more stringent emission

limits as a result of the technology review, the EPA should consider
setting different standards that do not require immediate compliance.
    One commenter also expressed concern about the cost associated with
lifting the stay. According to the commenter, the EPA underestimated
the cost to comply with the rule for the first year after the final
rule. The commenter cited a vendor quote of greater than $2 million to
design and install oxidation catalyst control technology for a single
simple cycle turbine and depending on the number of turbines that would
need to install controls, the cost could be several hundreds of
millions, if not billions, of dollars. According to the commenter, the
cost could have a real effect on rates paid by electric consumers,
given that simple cycle turbines are generally dispatched only at peak
hours or to relieve a constraint and thus are often called on during
out of order dispatch conditions. The commenter stated that adding the
oxidation catalyst costs to the turbine's overall costs mix will likely
increase the price at which these units bid into the market, and under
economic dispatch, these higher prices could set the market price in
peak or constraint conditions and potentially impact grid reliability.
    Response: With respect to comments regarding the costs that would
be incurred to comply with the stayed standards and the commenters'
assertion that such costs are not justified because emissions from the
sources are low risk, the EPA did not propose to change or solicit
comment on the emission standards or testing requirements, or the costs
of the original 2004 rule; therefore, comments on those aspects of the
rule are outside the scope of the proposal. Further, the EPA notes that
the standards that were stayed were established pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(2) and (3). Standards set under these provisions of CAA section
112 must reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP
that is achievable. This level of control is commonly referred to as
the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). CAA section 112(d)(3)
also establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards, known as
the MACT ``floor.'' The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed
for NESHAP and is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. For new
sources, the MACT standards cannot be less stringent than the emission
control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar
source. The standards that are stayed are MACT floor standards and the
EPA cannot establish a standard that is less stringent than the MACT
floor based on cost or risk. Further, as is explained in more detail
below, even assuming for the sake of argument that commenters are
correct that the EPA has discretion to continue the stay or has no
legal obligation to remove the stay, the EPA's view is that it is
appropriate to lift the stay at this time despite a pending petition to
delist the entire source category and in light of issues concerning EPA
authority for issuance of the stay in 2004.
    Comment: Numerous commenters stated that the EPA should postpone
lifting the stay for new lean premix and diffusion flame gas-fired
turbines until a decision is made on the forthcoming petition to delist
the entire source category under CAA section 112(c)(9). Commenters
stated that the petitioners are submitting new information that
suggests the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk for this source
category is less than 1-in-1 million and that the HQ is less than 1.
Commenters contend that these results show that the risk from this
source category meets the thresholds for delisting. A commenter noted
that it appears that the EPA intended to propose a separate rule to
remove the stay at a later date and stated that leaving the existing
stay in place pending an evaluation of the new study and a response to
any associated delisting petition is reasonable and appropriate.
    One commenter noted that the EPA's rationale for the stay was that
it would be ``inappropriate and contrary to statutory intent'' to
require sources to incur costs for installation and testing of controls
until a decision was made on whether the sources should be delisted (69
FR 51185; August 18, 2004). At the time the EPA adopted the stay, the
commenter noted that the EPA likely believed it would take final action
on the initial delisting petition within a short time, suggesting that
the EPA's concern was based on wasteful costs being imposed on a
relatively small number of turbines. The commenter asserted that the
rationale for the original stay applies now as well, given the new
petition, and because the stay has been in place for 15 years, the
costs associated with lifting it would be significantly higher than the
costs that were avoided by the issuance of the stay. Similarly, two
commenters stated that it would be inappropriate to lift the stay now
and require sources to take steps and incur significant costs to comply
with standards that may only apply for a short period of time and may
be eliminated once the petition is evaluated.
    Response: As explained in the proposed and final RTR rule, in 2004,
the EPA put into place a stay of the effectiveness of the NESHAP for
new lean premix gas-fired and diffusion flame gas-fired turbines,
pending the outcome of a 2004 proposed delisting. The EPA stated that
it would lift the stay if the subcategories were not ultimately
delisted, and turbines constructed or reconstructed after January 14,
2003, would then be subject to the final standards. As explained above,
the proposal to delist the four subcategories was never finalized in
light of the 2007 decision in NRDC v. EPA which addressed limits on the
EPA's ability to delist subcategories.
    Commenters contend that the EPA should postpone lifting the stay
for new lean premix and diffusion flame gas-fired turbines until a
decision is made on the petition to delist the entire source category.
The petition to delist that commenters refer to was submitted to the
Agency on August 28, 2019, with supplemental information provided as
recently as March 2021. As discussed previously in section II of this
preamble, final action on the source category delisting is not likely
to be made in the near term. Although the EPA determined that a stay
was appropriate in 2004 to avoid unwarranted expenditures on
installation of emission controls which would not be required if the
subcategories were delisted, and in the 2020 final RTR, the Agency
determined that it would be reasonable to delay taking final action on
the proposal to lift the stay for the same reasons in light of the new
petition to delist the turbine category, the EPA has since re-evaluated
its authority for the stay in light of recent caselaw concerning CAA
and APA stays and has been unable to identify any authority for the
stay in either the CAA or APA. Further, the commenters did not identify
any such authority. In light of the issues concerning the legality of
the 2004 stay and the uncertainty concerning the timing and outcome of
the EPA's final decision on the delisting petition explained above, the
EPA is taking final action now to lift the stay. In making this
determination, the EPA recognizes the potential costs to industry that
may be associated with the installation of controls but has determined
that the concerns associated with allowing that stay to remain in place
outweigh these considerations. The EPA does not believe that it would
be appropriate to continue to allow the estimated approximately 250 new
gas-fired stationary combustion turbines that have been installed at
major sources of HAP since 2003 to operate without emission standards
that are required

under the CAA. Moreover, risk and cost considerations are not relevant
to the issue of the EPA's authority for the stay. Further, the EPA
notes that owners and operators of the turbines have been on notice
that the stay might be removed from the rule since at least April 2019
when the Agency proposed to remove the stay. In addition, as explained
above, the 2004 final stay document explained that the EPA would lift
the stay if the subcategories were not ultimately delisted, and that
turbines constructed or reconstructed after January 14, 2003, would
then be subject to the final standards. The 2007 court decision in NRDC
made clear that the EPA could not move forward with the 2004 delisting
proposal and that decision put turbine owners and operators on notice
that the stay was at risk.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that when the EPA established
the 91 parts per billion by volume, dry basis (ppbvd) formaldehyde
emission limit in 2004, it acknowledged that the standard was based on
limited data and might require revision. The commenters stated that the
stay of the standards should remain in place until the EPA completes
that review and determines whether the standard should be revised.
    Two commenters noted that at the time the emission limit was
established, the EPA stated in the preamble to the final rule that
``[i]f actual emission data demonstrate that we are incorrect, and that
sources which properly install and operate an oxidation catalyst cannot
consistently achieve compliance, we will revise the standard
accordingly'' (69 FR 10512; March 5, 2004). One commenter stated that
at that time, California Air Resources Board (CARB) Method 430 \2\
could only detect formaldehyde down to 200-300 ppbvd; but, even today,
only the most recent technologies can measure formaldehyde below 100
ppbvd (and the commenter cited an EPRI document describing the accuracy
of those technologies as ``uncertain''). The commenter stated that
sources will need to perform baseline testing to determine whether they
can comply with a 91 ppbvd emission limit, and without that test data,
the commenter asserted that the EPA does not have the data to determine
whether the standard is achievable. The commenter stated that the EPA
should delay lifting the stay to allow sufficient time for companies
that already have installed oxidation catalysts to complete their
testing with the more accurate methodologies now available. If
compliance with the limit is an issue, the commenter suggested that the
EPA should revisit the standard, as anticipated in the 2004 rule.
Similarly, a commenter requested that the EPA revisit its determination
of the standard to ensure 91 ppbvd is achievable in light of the
operating records that may now be available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CARB Method 430 is a test method used to measure emissions
of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde from stationary sources. https://www.arb.ca.gov/testmeth/vol3/m_430.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters provided more specific suggestions for changing the
format of the standard. One commenter suggested that the EPA include
the subcategory of new lean premix and diffusion flame gas fired
turbines in the list of ``subcategories with limited requirements''
under 40 CFR 63.6090(b). The commenter stated that because risks from
this subcategory were low enough to consider delisting, imposing any
limits on this subcategory is unnecessary and would result in wasteful
and unwarranted expenditure, and these units should only be subject to
initial notification. If the EPA determines that a standard is
necessary, the other commenter suggested that the EPA consider either
an equipment standard or a work practice standard, pursuant to CAA
section 112(h). The commenters stated that limitations in the
formaldehyde measurement methods may mean that measurement is not
practicable due to technological limitations, so the EPA should
consider setting a standard under CAA section 112(h)(2)(B). The
commenter's suggested equipment standard would require compliance to be
demonstrated by documenting equipment performance, similar to the
requirements to verify catalyst performance with periodic portable
analyzer tests of CO in the Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
(RICE) NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ). The commenters suggested
that an appropriate work practice standard might include demonstrating
compliance for low emitting natural gas-fired units by completing
periodic burner tune-ups, analogous to the approach specified for
natural gas-fired units in 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD (Boiler
NESHAP).
    Response: The EPA did not propose to change or solicit comment on
the emission standards and therefore comments on those aspects of the
rule are outside the scope of the proposal. The EPA notes, however,
that it did not finalize the April 12, 2019 proposal to lift the stay
when it promulgated the final RTR on March 9, 2020, and so the delay
that commenters requested has occurred and sources have had nearly 3
years to conduct and provide to the EPA any baseline testing to
determine if there are compliance issues. Further, the formaldehyde
emissions data obtained during the original Stationary Combustion
Turbine NESHAP rulemaking--as well as during the recent RTR
rulemaking--demonstrate that stationary combustion turbines are able to
meet the 91 ppbvd formaldehyde emission standard. Moreover, these data
demonstrate that the available test methods are able to accurately
measure formaldehyde at levels below 91 ppbvd. See for example the data
summarized in the memo ``Review of the Acute Multiplier Used to Derive
Hourly Emission Rates for the Stationary Combustion Turbines Risk
Analysis'' (Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0688-0070). The commenters
did not provide any information to show that the limit of 91 ppbvd was
unachievable.
    With respect to the suggestion that the EPA impose only initial
notification requirements on new lean premix and diffusion flame gas
fired turbines because risks from these subcategories are low, as noted
above, it would not be appropriate to eliminate MACT floor emision
limits based on risk.
    Regarding the comments that the EPA should consider a work practice
or equipment standard under CAA section 112(h), commenters did not
provide any information to suggest that the criteria for establishment
of a work practice standard apply (e.g., that the pollutant cannot be
emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or
capture such pollutant or the application of measurement methodology to
a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological
and economic limitations). In fact, as noted above, emissions data show
that emissions at or below the standard can be measured. Therefore,
there does not appear to be a justification for a work practice or
equipment standard.
    Comment: Many commenters stated that if the EPA does finalize
lifting the stay, 180 days is not long enough for owners and operators
to conduct all the activities that will be needed for their turbines to
come into compliance with the standards. For various reasons, most of
the commenters suggested that 3 years, consistent with the period of
time allowed in the CAA for existing sources to comply with NESHAP,
would be appropriate. One commenter noted that this compliance date
should apply for turbines that commenced construction or reconstruction
after January 14, 2003, but before April 12, 2019 (the proposal date of
the amendment to lift the stay). Commenters also stated that the EPA

should make clear that facilities would have the option to petition for
another year to meet the standards if installation of controls is
required, per the CAA. Other compliance deadlines that were suggested
included from 18 months up to 25 months after the effective date of the
removal of the stay.
    Commenters stated that the EPA has provided for extensions of
compliance deadlines in prior rulemakings. Commenters stated that, as
an example, the EPA promulgated an interim final rule in 2014 to extend
all Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) compliance deadlines by 3
years to ``provide parties with sufficient time to prepare for
implementation, and avoid unnecessary regulatory burden'' (79 FR 71666;
December 3, 2014) after the judicial stay of the CSAPR was lifted by
the D.C. Circuit. A commenter provided the additional example of the
EPA's final rule requiring multiple states and the District of Columbia
to submit SIPs to address the regional transport of ground-level ozone
(commonly known as the ``NOX SIP Call'') in 1998, for which
it extended the proposed compliance deadline by 8 months, recognizing
the utility sector's concern that there were not enough trained
workers, engineering services, or materials and equipment to install
the NOX control technology by the initially proposed
deadline (63 FR 57356; October 27, 1998).
    One commenter stated that when the stay was originally issued, the
EPA recognized that many facilities would need to install controls
(e.g., oxidation catalyst) to meet the emission limit. In issuing the
final stay, commenters noted that the EPA indicated that if the
subcategories were not delisted, the stay would be lifted, and all
sources in the stayed subcategories would then be subject to the final
standards. Commenters further referenced the EPA's statement that
``[t]he sources will then be given the same time to make the requisite
demonstration of compliance they would have had if there had been no
stay'' (69 FR 51185; August 18, 2004). A commenter stated that some
companies expressed concern about the timing at that time, but due to
the expectation that turbines would be delisted, facilities were not
then harmed by the statement and therefore would have likely been
unable to litigate the issue.
    One commenter further noted that it is unlikely that any party
could file a petition for review of the existing stay now, given that
the EPA promulgated the stay in 2004 and is not under any court order
to lift the stay at this time. Commenters asserted that the 2004
language regarding the timing of compliance after the potential lifting
of the stay is reasonably interpreted to provide for adequate time to
install the controls, especially given that the EPA indicated that one
of the main reasons for staying the rule was to avoid capital
expenditures that ultimately would not be required if the delisting was
completed. Thus, the commenters asserted that sources legitimately
relied on these statements and reasonably expected that the EPA would
not lift the stay in a manner that would deprive them of the needed
time to install controls that the EPA intended to be deferred by
issuing the stay. As a result, commenters stated that during the time
the stay has been in place, many turbines have been constructed without
oxidation catalysts. A commenter noted that by the EPA's own estimates,
the number of such turbines is almost 200. The commenters asserted that
these units have been effectively operating as ``existing'' units under
the CAA.
    According to the commenters, now that the EPA has proposed to lift
the stay, owners and operators are beginning to develop performance
test plans to determine the existing formaldehyde concentration from
the turbine exhaust stack during different operating conditions.
Commenters stated that sufficient time would be needed for owners and
operators to find available testing contractors to perform baseline
performance testing for all the affected units. One commenter estimated
that this step would take 6 months, and another commenter estimated 1
to 3 months. Several commenters stated that there is limited
availability of testing contractors that can perform the necessary
Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy testing; one commenter
stated that it appears fewer than five vendors in the country can
provide testing with detection levels below 91 ppbvd. Therefore, some
commenters stated that performance testing could take up to 1 year, and
other commenters stated it would likely take longer than the 180 days
provided in the proposal. In addition, one commenter noted that the
General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 require a 60-day notice to the EPA
before a performance test that must be taken into account when
scheduling the testing. One commenter noted that performance testing
could be conducted using an alternative method, but owners and
operators could not use the results as the test to demonstrate initial
compliance without the EPA's approval prior to the test.
    Several commenters also stated that even if compliance can be
achieved without an oxidation catalyst, the owner or operator must
either determine the appropriate operating parameter(s) for compliance
monitoring and petition the Administrator for approval of site-specific
operating limitations or petition the Administrator for approval of no
additional operation limitations. The commenters asserted that
developing the information to support a petition, submitting the
petition, receiving approval for the petition, and scheduling and
conducting the initial performance test cannot be accomplished within
180 days. Two commenters stated that this petition process has been
used rarely, if ever, so the EPA's ability and resources to respond to
these petitions is largely untested. A commenter further stated that,
even if petitions are submitted for a relatively small portion of the
affected sources, the number of applications that the EPA is likely to
receive could overwhelm the Agency's ability to provide timely
responses (i.e., within 60 days). A commenter stated that the EPA has
not committed to a definitive review/comment/approval process timeframe
from which an affected source could estimate the necessary amount of
time to complete compliance demonstration requirements. Another
commenter agreed and specifically requested that the EPA support
delegated agencies in undertaking timely review of test plans and
report reviews. A commenter also stated that some sources that do not
need an oxidation catalyst still may need to make process adjustments
and even conduct extensive maintenance activities, such as replacing
combustor components, which can only be performed during scheduled
outages.
    Many commenters noted that for turbines that cannot meet the
formaldehyde standard without oxidation catalysts, capital projects
will be needed. According to the commenters, significant capital
projects at complex plants, especially retrofit projects, usually
entail a multi-year effort and often face spatial limitation
challenges. Commenters stated that 3 years to design and install
controls is typical. Commenters estimated installing oxidation catalyst
would take a minimum of 2 years, but one commenter clarified that
estimate assumes no delays. A commenter stated that preliminary
engineering assessments suggest that even where adequate load capacity
is available at a co-generation unit, 3 to 4 years is still aggressive
for engineering, procurement, and installation. Another commenter
agreed, noting that the company has a

significant number of affected units that will likely need substantial
infrastructure improvements and specific concerns related to turbines
that are used to drive compressors integral to the refrigeration
process to liquefy natural gas, so it is difficult to determine whether
3 years for compliance would be enough. Commenters stated that in
addition to a facility's individual concerns, the more turbines that
need oxidation catalysts, the more time providers of emissions
controls, parameter monitoring, and related support services will need
to meet the demands. Commenters also noted that additional design and
installation time could be needed for simple cycle units; construction
of a new structure would be required to hold the catalyst and a long
outage would be needed for installation due to high exhaust
temperatures.
    Commenters noted that necessary capital projects would include the
following activities (in addition to initial performance testing) and
estimated the amount of time to complete selected activities:
     Engineer and design a system to add an oxidation catalyst
to reduce CO emissions to meet the formaldehyde standard. One commenter
estimated that this step would take 1 year. Another commenter estimated
that design would take 6 months and engineering would be 12 months. A
commenter estimated that 2 to 5 months would be needed just to evaluate
whether structural changes are needed to the turbine ductwork to
install the catalyst. Two commenters stated that at least 1 year is
needed to plan and install oxidation catalysts.
     Develop a procurement specification for vendors to add an
oxidation catalyst, review bids, and select the vendor. One commenter
estimated that these activities would take 3 to 7 months and other
commenters estimated 6 months.
     Procure the CO oxidation catalyst and any additional
associated equipment. A commenter estimated that this step would take 6
months, provided there is enough CO oxidation catalyst available based
on demand. Another commenter estimated that 2 to 7 months would be
necessary but noted that more than 2 months will likely be needed if
there are competing orders. One commenter stated that engineering,
procurement, flow modeling, installation, and any necessary
modifications to existing equipment (e.g., ductwork modifications) and
software would require at least 9 months and more likely 1 year to
complete.
     Shut down the combustion turbine, install the oxidation
catalyst controls, and then start up the system with new oxidation
catalyst. Some commenters estimated that this step would take 6 months
and another commenter estimated 1 to 5 months.
     Implement all procedures and systems for parameter
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting; conduct performance testing
for initial compliance; and account for any additional time for
contingencies for the previous steps. One commenter estimated that this
step would take 6 months. Another commenter estimated that performance
testing would take 1 month. One commenter estimated 3 months to start
up and test the new equipment. A commenter stated that the amount of
time needed to schedule and conduct performance testing would be
similar to the time needed for initial testing.
     Ensure that necessary changes are made to the air permit.
One commenter stated that for new construction or retrofits, permit
amendments would be required prior to construction activities and the
permit approval time would be longer than 180 days. One commenter
stated that it may take 6 months or more to modify a major source
permit. Another commenter noted that for simpler permit amendments,
such as changing catalyst specifications, if the application is
submitted at the time the catalyst design is determined and approval is
granted within 45 days, this step could be concurrent with other
activities and would not necessarily add time to the schedule. A
commenter also noted that it is possible that addition of a catalyst
for formaldehyde control could increase criteria pollutants and require
permit action under New Source Review.
    Commenters also noted that public power utilities are entities of
state and local government and often must work through their governing
boards and or city councils to gain funding and approval for capital
projects. One commenter stated that this approval process may require
obtaining financing or issuing debt/bonds to pay for the projects and
coordinating with contractors, labor unions, and crane operators, along
with any permits required. The timeframe to secure financing would be
in addition to contracting, engineering, equipment installation and
testing schedules. The commenter noted that this process would likely
take about 6 to 8 months for an oxidation catalyst project. Similarly,
a commenter stated that military installations with affected turbines
would need to secure appropriations and enter into the contracting
process to meet the requirements. A commenter noted that facility
budgets are set annually and are integrated into a company's long-range
planning. The commenter noted that retrofit projects of this magnitude
and affecting multiple facilities would require adjustments and
approvals at many levels that may take many months. Another commenter
agreed that the significant capital expense for a catalyst would
require time to plan and receive approvals.
    Two commenters cited particular concerns regarding combustion
turbines that are designed for both power and steam generation
(combined heat and power (CHP) or co- generation units), noting that
they are often highly integrated with other operations. Control device
design, construction, and operation must carefully consider site power
needs, coordination with the power grid external to the site, and site
steam balances. Two other commenters agreed and stated that industrial
facilities that have installed stationary combustion turbines cannot
meet the site's full steam and electrical load using boilers and
purchased electricity. A facility's main transformers and switch gear
may not have the capability of running the entire facility at peak load
with the site's turbines offline, even if temporary steam boilers could
be rented, so facilities typically schedule their turbine outages to
coincide with facility outages, when steam and electrical load drop. A
commenter noted that the other alternative is to begin load shaving,
which carries with it the potential for process unit upsets and
unplanned shutdowns. Commenters stated that for facilities that rely on
stationary gas turbines to provide steam and electricity for multiple
pieces of equipment, extensive utility load studies would be needed to
determine the probability of running near the edge of compliance and to
plan any turbine shutdown that does not coincide with a major facility
turnaround (e.g., whether some equipment can be run without a turbine
online). A commenter also stated that for the Electrical Reliability
Council of Texas region there is sensitivity regarding even minor
generator maintenance during higher electrical demand months.
    To address these concerns, one commenter noted that turbine
downtime to install controls would need to be performed during the next
scheduled facility outage, which typically occurs at a 2-year (or
longer) frequency. A commenter suggested that the EPA provide a
compliance deadline of the first scheduled turnaround following 3

years after promulgation for CHP sources. Since facility turnarounds
can involve a wide range of extensive site maintenance activities
(e.g., planned equipment replacement, cleaning, and inspection, among
others), the commenter stated that it would be reasonable to coordinate
this turnaround time with the downtime necessary to install and
implement the design and modification changes, which would minimize the
amount of facility time spent offline, ensure steadier production rates
across the site, and maximize overall efficiency. Another commenter
agreed that additional compliance time may be required to integrate
unit down times into facility steam and electrical grid demand timing
constraints. A commenter stated that maintenance planning schedules are
developed multiple years in advance in order to efficiently coordinate
downtime for maintenance and new project construction, and changes to
these schedules cannot be implemented until engineering is complete and
control equipment availability is known.
    Commenters also cited particular concerns with retrofitting
turbines that have existing SCRs with oxidation catalysts to meet the
standard. One commenter noted that some turbine manufacturers have
indicated that further testing will be required before they know
whether a retrofitted SCR would be sufficient to attain compliance with
the formaldehyde standard. A commenter expressed concern that
installation of an oxidation catalyst could negatively impact SCR
performance. The commenter noted that the installation would cause
changes in temperature and pressure flow and could necessitate
increased ammonia usage, all of which could stress the SCR and degrade
performance over time. A commenter stated that one member company
expects to need to remove and re-engineer their SCR to accommodate
oxidation catalysts. The commenter stated that this will require design
and engineering time, permitting time, procurement time, construction
of the controls, removal of the current SCRs, fabrication of combined
system, and reinstallation, and the installation timing will need to be
integrated with facility turnaround plans. Commenters stated that
turbines with existing SCRs may need to use dual-function or dual-
purpose catalysts, which are not ``off-the-shelf'' catalysts. A
commenter stated that there is no significant increase in manufacturing
time for dual-purpose catalysts, but there are currently only two
suppliers of dual- purpose catalysts, so owners and operators may need
to account for additional time due to high demand.
    Without sufficient time to comply, one commenter stated that many
facilities could be out of compliance before controls can be installed.
In addition, the commenter noted that if the units are shut down to
avoid non-compliance, alternative sources of power would be tapped to
fill in any void. The commenter stated that the impact would likely be
less efficient facility operation (i.e., increased greenhouse gas and
other emissions), reduced reliability of area power grids, and a net
increase in emissions compared to running efficient turbine systems.
Alternatively, the commenter stated that companies will likely need to
either seek compliance schedules or consent agreements or use other
legal mechanisms in order to keep operating.
    Response: In the original 2004 rulemaking establishing the stay,
the EPA clearly indicated that the stay was only being established due
to the proposed delisting of certain subcategories of stationary
combustion turbines, and that the stay would be lifted if the
subcategories were not ultimately delisted. (69 FR 51185; August 18,
2004). As discussed previously, the proposal to delist the four
subcategories was never finalized in light of the 2007 decision in NRDC
v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1364 (D.C. Cir. 2007), which addressed limits on the
EPA's ability to delist subcategories. Therefore, the EPA is taking
action to remove the stay that was put in place while the proposed
delisting of subcategories was evaluated. Turbine owners and operators
have known since the 2007 decision that the basis for the stay was in
question.
    Moreover, the EPA indicated in the 2004 rulemaking establishing the
stay that ``if the subcategories are not ultimately delisted, the stay
will be lifted, and all sources in the subcategories constructed or
reconstructed after January 14, 2003 will then be subject to the final
standards.'' The EPA also said that sources would be given the same
time to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission standards if
the stay was lifted as they would have had if there had been no stay.
(69 FR 18341; April 7, 2004). As stated in 40 CFR 63.6110(a), owners
and operators have 180 calendar days for the initial compliance
demonstration. The EPA also indicated in the 2019 proposal to remove
the stay that owners and operators of turbines that were subject to the
stay of the standards for new gas-fired turbines would be required to
comply with all applicable regulatory requirements immediately upon a
final action to remove the stay and would have 180 days from the date
the stay is removed for the initial compliance demonstration (84 FR
15068; April 12, 2019). Therefore, owners and operators have had notice
of the requirements that would apply immediately if and when the stay
was lifted and there was no basis for commenter to interpret the EPA's
statements concerning initial compliance demonstration as suggesting
otherwise.
    Regarding the comments that the EPA has provided for extensions of
compliance deadlines in CSAPR and the NOX SIP Call, the EPA
notes that in the EPA rules cited by the commenter, the EPA merely
codified legally enforceable modifications to deadlines that were
imposed by a court. There is no such court action that modifies the
compliance deadlines that will be triggered when the stay is lifted.
The commenters did not identify any authorities which would allow the
EPA to extend or suspend the compliance deadlines for new sources (any
source that was constructed or reconstructed after the 2003 NESHAP
proposal) established under the CAA and the Part 63 regulations once
the stay is lifted.
    Comment: One commenter stated that if the EPA finalizes lifting the
stay without providing additional time to comply with the rule, the EPA
should provide for an administrative noncompliance procedure for
owners/operators of turbines affected by the 2004 stay of the rule. The
commenter noted that the EPA provided an administrative noncompliance
process for certain electric steam generating utility units that were
unable to comply timely with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
(MATS) and asserted that the EPA should provide a similar procedure for
stationary combustion turbines that are newly subject to subpart YYYY's
numeric emission limitations. The commenter stated that although many
more turbines might be affected than boilers that required additional
time to meet the MATS, far lower emissions would be likely.
    The commenter's suggested procedure would allow owners and
operators of turbines that cannot comply immediately with subpart YYYY
to provide notice to the Agency of their noncompliance without penalty.
The commenter then suggested that thereafter, those affected operators
would be given the opportunity to enter into a compliance schedule with
enforceable milestones to meet the standard. The commenter stated that
affected units should be required to notify their respective state and
EPA regional authorities within a short

period of time (e.g., 14 days after promulgation by providing the
affected plant's name and address, the name of the responsible officer,
and the date of installation of the affected turbine(s). The commenter
also suggested that upon receipt of a complete notification, the unit
should be eligible for a noncompliance period for a period of no longer
than 3 years, provided that the owner/operator subsequently submits a
compliance plan with specific milestones for achieving compliance
including the emission testing of units newly subject to the numeric
emission limits, and, for those units that cannot meet those emission
limits, the design, purchase, and installation of pollution controls
and parametric monitoring devices.
    The commenter also stated that it is likely that the EPA would need
a separate rulemaking to add an administrative noncompliance procedure
to subpart YYYY. However, the commenter noted that the EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance could administer an administrative
order on consent outside of the rulemaking process, similar to the
procedure used by the Agency in the MATS. The commenter recommended
that the procedure be implemented separately from this rulemaking, in
part because each administrative order on consent would be based on a
case-by-case review of facts and the EPA's exercise of the Agency's
enforcement discretion.
    Response: The EPA stated in the memo setting forth the MATS
Enforcement Response Policy \3\ that the EPA generally does not speak
publicly to the intended scope of its enforcement efforts but was doing
so in the case of the MATS rule to provide confidence with respect to
electric reliability. The commenters did not provide any information to
show that such reliability considerations are also a factor for
stationary combustion turbine facilities that will be impacted by the
removal of the stay. The EPA also notes that only five Administrative
Orders were issued in connection with the MATS Policy. The EPA does not
agree that it is necessary to establish a special administrative
noncompliance procedure for this action. For a source that fails to
comply with the applicable requirements of subpart YYYY once the stay
is lifted, the EPA will determine an appropriate response, if any,
based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to
comply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Environmental Protection Agency's Enforcement Response
Policy for Use of Clean Air Act Section 113(a) Administrative Orders
In Relation To Electric Reliability And The Mercury and Air Toxics
Standard. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/mats-erp.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Impacts of the Final Rule

    The environmental, energy, environmental justice, and economic
impacts of the Stationary Combustion Turbine NESHAP were addressed in
the original 2004 final rule. See 69 FR 10533-10534 (March 5, 2004). No
additional impacts are expected as a result of this final rule.

V. 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 Order 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. 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 2060-0541. This action does not impose an information
collection burden because the EPA is not making any changes to the
information collection requirements.

C. 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. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. The March 5, 2004, Stationary Combustion
Turbine NESHAP final rule was certified as not having a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule does not impose any additional burden on affected sources beyond
the burden already addressed in the original 2004 rule.\4\ The EPA has,
therefore, concluded that this action will have no net regulatory
burden for all directly regulated small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Economic Impact Analysis of the Final Stationary Combustion
Turbines NESHAP: Final Report. EPA-452/R-03-014. August 2003.
Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0060-0636.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. 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.

E. 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.

F. 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.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

H. 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.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. 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
EPA performed a demographic analysis of the Stationary Combustion
Turbine source category for the RTR, 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. The documentation
for the analysis can be found in the technical report, Risk and
Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Stationary Combustion Turbines Source Category Operations
(Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0688-0071). In the analysis, the EPA
evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks
from Stationary Combustion Turbine source category emissions across
different demographic groups within the populations living near
facilities. The results of that analysis indicated that there is not a
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or
indigenous peoples. This action will further reduce the risks from the
source category emissions.

K. 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 procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is
amended 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 YYYY--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Stationary Combustion Turbines

0
2. Section 63.6095 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4)
and removing paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.6095   When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) * * *
    (3) If you start up a new or reconstructed stationary combustion
turbine which is a lean premix gas-fired stationary combustion turbine
or a diffusion flame gas-fired stationary combustion turbine as defined
by this subpart on or before March 9, 2022, you must comply with the
emissions limitations and operating limitations in this subpart no
later than March 9, 2022.
    (4) If you start up a new or reconstructed stationary combustion
turbine which is a lean premix gas-fired stationary combustion turbine
or a diffusion flame gas-fired stationary combustion turbine as defined
by this subpart after March 9, 2022, you must comply with the emissions
limitations and operating limitations in this subpart upon startup of
your affected source.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-04848 Filed 3-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P