[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 44 (Friday, March 5, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10512-10548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-4530]



[[Page 10511]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary 
Combustion Turbines; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 44 / Friday, March 5, 2004 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 10512]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR-2002-0060; FRL-7554-2]
RIN 2060-AG-67


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Stationary Combustion Turbines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for stationary combustion turbines. 
We have identified stationary combustion turbines as major sources of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions such as formaldehyde, toluene, 
benzene, and acetaldehyde. The NESHAP will implement section 112(d) of 
the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP 
emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable 
control technology (MACT) for combustion turbines. In the final NESHAP, 
we have divided the stationary combustion turbine category into eight 
subcategories, including lean premix gas-fired turbines, lean premix 
oil-fired turbines, diffusion flame gas-fired turbines, diffusion flame 
oil-fired turbines, emergency turbines, turbines with a rated peak 
power output of less than 1.0 megawatt (MW), turbines burning landfill 
or digester gas, and turbines located on the North Slope of Alaska. We 
have also adopted a final emission standard requiring control of 
formaldehyde emissions for all new or reconstructed stationary 
combustion turbines in the four lean premix and diffusion flame 
subcategories. We estimate that 20 percent of the stationary combustion 
turbines affected by the final rule will be located at major sources. 
As a result, the environmental, energy, and economic impacts presented 
in this preamble reflect these estimates. The final rule will protect 
public health by reducing exposure to air pollution, by reducing total 
national HAP emissions by an estimated 98 tons per year (tpy) in the 
5th year after the rule is promulgated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 5, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0060 (paper docket No. A-95-
51) contains supporting information used in developing the standards. 
The docket is located at the U.S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460 in room B102, and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. 
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning 
applicability and rule determinations, contact the appropriate State or 
local agency representative. For information concerning the analyses 
performed in developing the NESHAP, contact Mr. Sims Roy, Combustion 
Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-C439-01), U.S. EPA, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-5263; 
facsimile number (919) 541-5450; electronic mail address 
``[email protected].''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities 
potentially regulated by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Examples of
             Category                SIC     NAICS    regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any industry using a stationary       4911     2211  Electric power
 combustion turbine as defined in                     generation,
 the regulation.                                      transmission, or
                                                      distribution
                                      4922   486210  Natural gas
                                                      transmission
                                      1311   211111  Crude petroleum and
                                                      natural gas
                                                      production
                                      1321   211112  Natural gas liquids
                                                      producers
                                      4931      221  Electric and other
                                                      services combined
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.6085 of the 
final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this 
action under Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0060 (A-95-51). The official public 
docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this 
action, any public comments received, and other information related to 
this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket 
does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official 
public docket is the collection of materials that is available for 
public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket 
Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, 
and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-
1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
    Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document 
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' 
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may 
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments, 
access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, 
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available 
electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available 
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available 
docket materials through the docket facility identified above. Once in 
the system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket 
identification number.
    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial 
review of the final NESHAP is available only by filing a petition for 
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit by May 4, 2004. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an 
objection to a rule or procedure raised with reasonable specificity 
during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial 
review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 
established by the final rule may not be challenged separately in any 
civil or criminal proceeding brought to enforce these requirements.
    Background Information Document. The EPA proposed the NESHAP for 
stationary combustion turbines on January 14, 2003 (68 FR 1888), and

[[Page 10513]]

received 75 comment letters on the proposal. A background information 
document (BID) (``National Emission Standards for Stationary Combustion 
Turbines, Summary of Public Comments and Responses,'') containing EPA's 
responses to each public comment is available in Docket ID No. OAR-
2002-0060 (A-95-51).
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:
I. Background
    A. What is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
    B. What Criteria are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
    C. What are the Health Effects Associated with HAP from 
Stationary Combustion Turbines?
    D. What is the Regulatory Development Background of the Source 
Category?
II. Summary of the Final Rule
    A. What Sources are Subject to the Final Rule?
    B. What Source Categories and Subcategories are Affected by the 
Final Rule?
    C. What are the Primary Sources of HAP Emissions and What are 
the Emissions?
    D. What are the Emission Limitations and Operating Limitations?
    E. What are the Initial Compliance Requirements?
    F. What are the Continuous Compliance Provisions?
    G. What are the Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting 
Requirements?
III. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
    A. Applicability
    B. Definitions
    C. Dates
    D. MACT
    E. Emission Limitations
    F. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
    G. Test Methods
    H. Risk-Based Approaches
    I. Other
IV. Rationale for Selecting the Final Standards
    A. How did we Select the Source Category and any Subcategories?
    B. What are the Requirements for Stationary Combustion Turbines 
Located at Area Sources?
    C. What is the Affected Source?
    D. How did we Determine the Basis and Level of the Emission 
Limitations for Existing Sources?
    E. How did we Determine the Basis and Level of the Emission 
Limitations and Operating Limitations for New Sources?
    F. How did we Select the Initial Compliance Requirements?
    G. How did we Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements?
    H. How did we Select the Testing Methods to Measure these Low 
Concentrations of Formaldehyde?
    I. How did we Select the Notification, Recordkeeping and 
Reporting Requirements?
V. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the Air Quality Impacts?
    B. What are the Cost Impacts?
    C. What are the Economic Impacts?
    D. What are the Non-air Health, Environmental and Energy 
Impacts?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    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
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. What is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish 
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The 
stationary turbine source category was listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 
31576). Major sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit 
greater than 10 tpy of any one HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP.

B. What Criteria are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the 
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA 
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in 
emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly 
referred to as the MACT.
    The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and 
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT 
floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all 
major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as 
that already achieved by the better controlled and lower emitting 
sources in each source category or subcategory. 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 MACT 
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards 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, we also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent 
than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the 
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements.

C. What are the Health Effects Associated with HAP from Stationary 
Combustion Turbines?

    Emission data collected during development of the NESHAP show that 
several HAP are emitted from stationary combustion turbines. These HAP 
emissions are formed during combustion or result from HAP compounds 
contained in the fuel burned.
    Among the HAP which have been measured in emission tests that were 
conducted at natural gas fired and distillate oil fired combustion 
turbines are: 1,3 butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 
ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, naphthalene, poly aromatic hydrocarbons 
(PAH) propylene oxide, toluene, and xylenes. Metallic HAP from 
distillate oil fired stationary combustion turbines that have been 
measured are: arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, 
mercury, nickel, and selenium. Natural gas fired stationary combustion 
turbines do not emit metallic HAP.
    Although numerous HAP may be emitted from combustion turbines, only 
a few account for essentially all the mass of HAP emissions from 
stationary combustion turbines. These HAP are: formaldehyde, toluene, 
benzene, and acetaldehyde.
    The HAP emitted in the largest quantity is formaldehyde. 
Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen and can cause irritation of 
the eyes and respiratory tract, coughing, dry throat, tightening of the 
chest, headache, and heart palpitations. Acute inhalation has caused 
bronchitis, pulmonary edema, pneumonitis, pneumonia, and death due to 
respiratory failure. Long-term exposure can cause dermatitis and 
sensitization of the skin and respiratory tract.
    Other HAP emitted in significant quantities from stationary 
combustion turbines include toluene, benzene, and acetaldehyde. The 
health effect of primary concern for toluene is dysfunction of the 
central nervous system (CNS). Toluene vapor also

[[Page 10514]]

causes narcosis. Controlled exposure of human subjects produced mild 
fatigue, weakness, confusion, lacrimation, and paresthesia; at higher 
exposure levels there were also euphoria, headache, dizziness, dilated 
pupils, and nausea. After-effects included nervousness, muscular 
fatigue, and insomnia persisting for several days. Acute exposure may 
cause irritation of the eyes, respiratory tract, and skin. It may also 
cause fatigue, weakness, confusion, headache, and drowsiness. Very high 
concentrations may cause unconsciousness and death.
    Benzene is a known human carcinogen. The health effects of benzene 
include nerve inflammation, CNS depression, and cardiac sensitization. 
Chronic exposure to benzene can cause fatigue, nervousness, 
irritability, blurred vision, and labored breathing and has produced 
anorexia and irreversible injury to the blood-forming organs; effects 
include aplastic anemia and leukemia. Acute exposure can cause 
dizziness, euphoria, giddiness, headache, nausea, staggering gait, 
weakness, drowsiness, respiratory irritation, pulmonary edema, 
pneumonia, gastrointestinal irritation, convulsions, and paralysis. 
Benzene can also cause irritation to the skin, eyes, and mucous 
membranes.
    Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen. The health effects for 
acetaldehyde are irritation of the eyes, mucous membranes, skin, and 
upper respiratory tract, and it is a CNS depressant in humans. Chronic 
exposure can cause conjunctivitis, coughing, difficult breathing, and 
dermatitis. Chronic exposure may cause heart and kidney damage, 
embryotoxicity, and teratogenic effects.
    We do not have the type of current detailed data on each of the 
facilities covered by the final rule and the people living around the 
facilities that would be necessary to conduct an analysis to determine 
the actual population exposures to the HAP emitted from these 
facilities and potential for resultant health effects. Therefore, we do 
not know the extent to which the adverse health effects described above 
occur in the populations surrounding these facilities. However, to the 
extent the adverse effects do occur, the final rule will reduce 
emissions and subsequent exposures.

D. What is the Regulatory Development Background of the Source 
Category?

    In September 1996, we chartered the Industrial Combustion 
Coordinated Rulemaking (ICCR) advisory committee under the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The committee's objective was to develop 
recommendations for regulations for several combustion source 
categories under sections 112 and 129 of the CAA. The ICCR advisory 
committee, also known as the Coordinating Committee, formed Source Work 
Groups for the various combustor types covered under the ICCR. One work 
group, the Combustion Turbine Work Group, was formed to research issues 
related to stationary combustion turbines. The Combustion Turbine Work 
Group submitted recommendations, information, and data analyses to the 
Coordinating Committee, which in turn considered them and submitted 
recommendations and information to us. The Committee's 2-year charter 
expired in September 1998. We considered the Committee's 
recommendations in developing the final rule for stationary combustion 
turbines.
    We have received a petition from the Gas Turbine Association (GTA) 
requesting that we delist certain subcategories of combustion turbines. 
We have been working with GTA to improve and supplement the data 
supporting this petition. Once a final determination has been made 
concerning the delisting petition, we will promptly make any conforming 
amendments to the Stationary Combustion Turbine NESHAP which are 
warranted.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

A. What Sources are Subject to the Final Rule?

    The final rule applies to you if you own or operate a stationary 
combustion turbine which is located at a major source of HAP emissions. 
A major source of HAP emissions is a plant site that emits or has the 
potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tpy (9.07 megagrams 
per year (Mg/yr)) or more or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tpy 
(22.68 Mg/yr) or more.
    Section 112(n)(4) of the CAA requires that the aggregation of HAP 
for purposes of determining whether an oil and gas production facility 
is major or nonmajor be done only with respect to particular sites 
within the source and not on a total aggregated site basis. We 
referenced the requirements of section 112(n)(4) of the CAA in our 
NESHAP for Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities in subpart HH of 
40 CFR part 63. As in subpart HH, we plan to aggregate HAP emissions 
for the purposes of determining a major HAP source for turbines only 
with respect to particular sites within an oil and gas production 
facility. The sites are called surface sites and may include a 
combination of any of the following equipment: glycol dehydrators, 
tanks which have potential for flash emissions, reciprocating internal 
combustion engines, and combustion turbines.
    The EPA acknowledges that the definition of major source in the 
final rule may be different from those found in other rules, however, 
this does not alter the definition of major source in other rules and, 
therefore, does not affect the Oil and Natural Gas Production 
Facilities NESHAP (subpart HH of 40 CFR part 63) or any other rule 
applicability.
    Eight subcategories have been defined within the stationary 
combustion turbine source category. While all stationary combustion 
turbines are subject to the final rule, each subcategory has distinct 
requirements. For example, existing combustion turbines and stationary 
combustion turbines with a rated peak power output of less than 1.0 MW 
(at International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard day 
conditions) are not required to comply with emission limitations, 
recordkeeping or reporting requirements in the final rule. New or 
reconstructed combustion turbines must comply with emission 
limitations, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the final 
rule. You must determine your source's subcategory to determine which 
requirements apply to your source.
    The final rule does not apply to stationary combustion turbines 
located at an area source of HAP emissions. An area source of HAP 
emissions is a contiguous site under common control that is not a major 
source.
    Stationary combustion turbines located at research or laboratory 
facilities are not subject to the final rule if research is conducted 
on the turbine itself and the turbine is not being used to power other 
applications at the research or laboratory facility.
    The final rule does not cover duct burners. They are part of the 
waste heat recovery unit in a combined cycle system. Waste heat 
recovery units, whether part of a cogeneration system or a combined 
cycle system, are steam generating units and are not covered by the 
final rule.
    Finally, the final rule does not apply to stationary combustion 
engine test cells/stands since these facilities are already covered by 
another NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP.

[[Page 10515]]

B. What Source Categories and Subcategories are Affected by the Final 
Rule?

    The final rule covers stationary combustion turbines. A stationary 
combustion turbine includes all equipment including, but not limited 
to, the turbine, the fuel, air, lubrication and exhaust gas systems, 
control systems (except emissions control equipment), and any ancillary 
components and sub-components comprising any simple cycle stationary 
combustion turbine, any regenerative/recuperative cycle stationary 
combustion turbine, or the combustion turbine portion of any stationary 
combined cycle steam/electric generating system. Stationary means that 
the combustion turbine is not self-propelled or intended to be 
propelled while performing its function. A stationary combustion 
turbine may, however, be mounted on a vehicle for portability or 
transportability.
    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 MSW 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 MW 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 1000 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 1000 
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 1000 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 
1000 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 North)).
    Emergency stationary combustion turbine means any stationary 
combustion turbine that operates in an emergency situation. Examples 
include stationary combustion turbines used to produce power for 
critical networks or equipment (including power supplied to portions of 
a facility) when electric power from the local utility is interrupted, 
or stationary combustion turbines used to pump water in the case of 
fire or flood, etc. Emergency stationary combustion turbines do not 
include stationary combustion turbines used as peaking units at 
electric utilities or stationary combustion turbines at industrial 
facilities that typically operate at low capacity factors. Emergency 
stationary combustion turbines may be operated for the purpose of 
maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided that the tests are 
required by the manufacturer, the vendor, or the insurance company 
associated with the turbine. Required testing of such units should be 
minimized, but there is no time limit on the use of emergency 
stationary sources.
    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 stationary combustion turbines where gasified MSW is used to 
generate 10 percent or more of the gross heat input to the stationary 
combustion turbine on an annual basis qualify as a separate subcategory 
because the types of control available for these turbines are limited.
    Stationary combustion turbines of less than 1 MW rated peak power 
output were also identified as a subcategory. These small stationary 
combustion turbines are few in number and, to our knowledge, none use 
emission control technology to reduce HAP. Therefore, it would be 
inappropriate to require HAP emission controls to be applied to them 
without further information on control technology performance.
    Two subcategories of stationary lean premix combustion turbines 
were established: stationary lean premix combustion turbines when 
firing gas and when firing oil at sites where all turbines fire oil no 
more than 1000 hours annually (also referred to as ``lean premix gas-
fired turbines''), and stationary lean premix combustion turbines when 
firing oil at sites where all turbines fire oil more than 1000 hours 
annually (also referred to as ``lean premix oil-fired turbines''). Lean 
premix technology, introduced in the 1990's, was developed to reduce 
nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions without the use of add-on 
controls. In a lean premix combustor, the air and fuel are thoroughly 
mixed to form a lean mixture for combustion. Mixing may occur before or 
in the combustion chamber. Lean premix combustors emit lower levels of 
NOX, carbon monoxide (CO), formaldehyde and other HAP than 
diffusion flame combustion turbines.
    Two subcategories of stationary diffusion flame combustion turbines 
were established: stationary diffusion flame combustion turbines when 
firing gas and when firing oil at sites where all turbines fire oil no 
more than 1000 hours annually (also referred to as ``diffusion flame 
gas-fired turbines''), and stationary diffusion flame combustion 
turbines when firing oil at sites where all turbines fire oil more than 
1000 hours annually (also referred to as ``diffusion flame oil-fired 
turbines''). In a diffusion flame combustor, the fuel and air are 
injected at the combustor and are mixed only by diffusion prior to 
ignition. Hazardous air pollutant emissions from these turbines can be 
significantly decreased with the addition of air pollution control 
equipment.
    Stationary combustion turbines located on the North Slope of Alaska 
have been identified as a subcategory due to operating limitations and 
uncertainties regarding the application of controls to these units. 
There are very few of these units, and none have installed emission 
controls for the reduction of HAP.

C. What are the Primary Sources of HAP Emissions and What are the 
Emissions?

    Combustion turbines are acknowledged as the cleanest and most 
efficient method of producing electrical power. The sources of 
emissions are the exhaust gases from combustion of gaseous and liquid 
fuels in a stationary combustion turbine. Hazardous air pollutants that 
are present in the exhaust gases from stationary combustion turbines 
include formaldehyde, toluene, benzene, and acetaldehyde.

D. What are the Emission Limitations and Operating Limitations?

    As the owner or operator of a new or reconstructed lean premix gas-
fired turbine, a new or reconstructed lean premix oil-fired turbine, a 
new or reconstructed diffusion flame gas-fired turbine, or a new or 
reconstructed diffusion flame oil-fired turbine, you must comply with 
the emission limitation to reduce the concentration of formaldehyde in 
the exhaust from the new or reconstructed stationary combustion turbine 
to 91 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) or less, dry basis (ppbvd), at 
15 percent oxygen by the effective date of the standards (or upon 
startup if you start up your stationary combustion turbine after the 
effective date of the standards).

[[Page 10516]]

    If you comply with the emission limitation for formaldehyde 
emissions and you use an oxidation catalyst emission control device, 
you must continuously monitor the oxidation catalyst inlet temperature 
and maintain the inlet temperature to the oxidation catalyst within the 
range recommended by the catalyst manufacturer.
    If you comply with the emission limitation for formaldehyde 
emissions and you do not use an oxidation catalyst emission control 
device, you must petition the Administrator for approval of operating 
limitations or approval of no operating limitations.

E. What are the Initial Compliance Requirements?

    If you operate a new or reconstructed lean premix gas-fired 
turbine, a new or reconstructed lean premix oil-fired turbine, a new or 
reconstructed diffusion flame gas-fired turbine, or a new or 
reconstructed diffusion flame oil-fired turbine, you must conduct an 
initial performance test using Test Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, 
appendix A, or ASTM D6348-03 to demonstrate that the outlet 
concentration of formaldehyde is 91 ppbvd or less (corrected to 15 
percent oxygen). To correct to 15 percent oxygen, dry basis, you must 
measure oxygen using Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and 
moisture using either Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Test 
Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or ASTM D6348-03. The initial 
performance test must be conducted at high load conditions, defined as 
100 percent 10 percent.
    If you operate a new or reconstructed stationary combustion turbine 
in one of the subcategories required to comply with an emission 
limitation and use an oxidation catalyst emission control device, you 
must also install a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) to 
continuously monitor the oxidation catalyst inlet temperature.
    If you operate a new or reconstructed stationary combustion turbine 
in one of the subcategories required to comply with an emission 
limitation and you do not use an oxidation catalyst emission control 
device, you must petition the Administrator for approval of operating 
limitations or approval of no operating limitations.
    If you petition the Administrator for approval of operating 
limitations, your petition must include the following: (1) 
Identification of the specific parameters you propose to use as 
operating limitations; (2) a discussion of the relationship between 
these parameters and HAP emissions, identifying how HAP emissions 
change with changes in these parameters, and how limitations on these 
parameters will serve to limit HAP emissions; (3) a discussion of how 
you will establish the upper and/or lower values for these parameters 
which will establish the limits on these parameters in the operating 
limitations; (4) a discussion identifying the methods you will use to 
measure and the instruments you will use to monitor these parameters, 
as well as the relative accuracy and precision of these methods and 
instruments; and (5) a discussion identifying the frequency and methods 
for recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring these 
parameters.
    If you petition the Administrator for approval of no operating 
limitations, your petition must include the following: (1) 
Identification of the parameters associated with operation of the 
stationary combustion turbine and any emission control device which 
could change intentionally (e.g., operator adjustment, automatic 
controller adjustment, etc.) or unintentionally (e.g., wear and tear, 
error, etc.) on a routine basis or over time; (2) a discussion of the 
relationship, if any, between changes in these parameters and changes 
in HAP emissions; (3) for those parameters with a relationship to HAP 
emissions, a discussion of whether establishing limitations on these 
parameters would serve to limit HAP emissions; (4) for those parameters 
with a relationship to HAP emissions, a discussion of how you could 
establish upper and/or lower values for these parameters which would 
establish limits on these parameters in operating limitations; (5) for 
those parameters with a relationship to HAP emissions, a discussion 
identifying the methods you could use to measure these parameters and 
the instruments you could use to monitor them, as well as the relative 
accuracy and precision of these methods and instruments; (6) for these 
parameters, a discussion identifying the frequency and methods for 
recalibrating the instruments you could use to monitor them; and, (7) a 
discussion of why, from your point of view, it is infeasible, 
unreasonable, or unnecessary to adopt these parameters as operating 
limitations.

F. What are the Continuous Compliance Provisions?

    Several general continuous compliance requirements apply to 
stationary combustion turbines required to comply with the emission 
limitations. You are required to comply with the emission limitations 
and the operating limitations (if applicable) at all times, except 
during startup, shutdown, and malfunction of your stationary combustion 
turbine. You must also operate and maintain your stationary combustion 
turbine, air pollution control equipment, and monitoring equipment 
according to good air pollution control practices at all times, 
including startup, shutdown, and malfunction. You must conduct 
monitoring at all times that the stationary combustion turbine is 
operating, except during periods of malfunction of the monitoring 
equipment or necessary repairs and quality assurance or control 
activities, such as calibration checks.
    To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations, 
you must conduct annual performance tests for formaldehyde. You must 
conduct the annual performance tests using Test Method 320 of 40 CFR 
part 63, appendix A, or ASTM D6348-03 to demonstrate that the outlet 
concentration of formaldehyde is at or below 91 ppbvd of formaldehyde 
(correct to 15 percent oxygen). The annual performance test must be 
conducted at high load conditions, defined as 100 percent 10 percent.
    If you operate a new or reconstructed stationary combustion turbine 
in one of the subcategories required to comply with an emission 
limitation and you use an oxidation catalyst emission control device, 
you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating 
limitations by continuously monitoring the oxidation catalyst inlet 
temperature. The 4-hour rolling average of the valid data must be 
within the range recommended by the catalyst manufacturer.
    If you operate a new or reconstructed stationary combustion turbine 
in one of the subcategories required to comply with an emission 
limitation and you do not use an oxidation catalyst emission control 
device, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating 
limitations by continuously monitoring parameters which have been 
approved by the Administrator (if any).

G. What are the Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements?

    You must submit all of the applicable notifications as listed in 
the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), including an 
initial notification, notification of performance test or evaluation, 
and a notification of compliance, for each stationary combustion 
turbine which must comply with the emission limitations. If your new or 
reconstructed stationary

[[Page 10517]]

combustion turbine is located at a major source, has greater than 1 MW 
rated peak power output, and is an emergency stationary combustion 
turbine, a combustion turbine which burns landfill or digester gas 
equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross heat input on an annual 
basis or where gasified MSW is used to generate 10 percent or more of 
the gross heat input to the stationary combustion turbine on an annual 
basis, or a stationary combustion turbine located on the North Slope of 
Alaska, you must submit only an initial notification.
    For each combustion turbine in one of the subcategories which is 
subject to an emission limitation, you must record all of the data 
necessary to determine if you are in compliance with the emission 
limitation. Your records must be in a form suitable and readily 
available for review. You must also keep each record for 5 years 
following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 
report, or record. Records must remain on site for at least 2 years and 
then can be maintained off site for the remaining 3 years.

III. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

    A more detailed summary of comments and our responses can be found 
in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses document, which is 
available from several sources (see Addresses section).

A. Applicability

    Comment: Several commenters said that the definition of affected 
source should be modified to be consistent with the definition found in 
Sec.  63.2 of the General Provisions.
    Response: Although 40 CFR 63.2 of the General Provisions provides 
that we will generally adopt a broad definition of affected source, 
which includes all emission units within each subcategory which are 
located within the same contiguous area, this section also provides 
that we may adopt a narrower definition of affected source in instances 
where we determine that the broader definition would ``create 
significant administrative, practical, or implementation problems'' and 
``the different definition would resolve those problems.'' This is such 
an instance. Because of the way that the subcategories of combustion 
turbines are defined, individual turbines can switch between 
subcategories based on the fuel they are burning. We have taken some 
steps in the definition of subcategories to limit the frequency of such 
switching between subcategories, because we believe it could create 
confusion and complicate compliance determinations. However, fuel 
specific subcategories are necessary to derive a MACT floor which 
appropriately considers the difference in the composition of the HAP 
emitted based on the fuel used. Thus, we cannot eliminate the 
possibility that individual turbines will switch subcategories. Use of 
the broader definition of affected source specified by the General 
Provisions would require very complex aggregate compliance 
determinations, because an individual turbine could be part of one 
affected source at one time and part of a different affected source at 
another time. This would require that the contribution of each turbine 
to total emissions for all emission units within each subcategory be 
adjusted to reflect the proportionate time the unit was operating 
within that subcategory. We believe such complicated compliance 
determinations to be impractical and, therefore, have decided to adopt 
a definition which establishes each individual combustion turbine as 
the affected source.
    Comment: One commenter said that the final rule should be explicit 
as to whether the 1 MW capacity level for inclusion in the less than 1 
MW rated peak power subcategory applies to an individual combustion 
turbine or applies to the aggregate capacity of a group of combustion 
turbines.
    Response: We intended for the 1 MW capacity level to apply to an 
individual combustion turbine, not the aggregate capacity of a group of 
combustion turbines. This clarification has been made in the final 
rule.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that EPA should increase the 1 
MW capacity threshold. Comments received included suggestions to 
exclude from the rule turbines rated less than 10 MW and 
recommendations to create a subcategory for units with a capacity of 25 
MW or less. Some commenters said that the size applicability criteria 
should be adjusted to be consistent with the MACT floor.
    Response: Although 3 MW is the smallest size unit that is known to 
have add-on HAP control, we feel it is appropriate to set the cutoff 
for inclusion in the less than 1 MW rated peak power subcategory at 1 
MW because the control technology used for 3 MW units can be 
transferred to units as small as 1 MW.
    Comment: Many commenters recommended that EPA provide an emission 
threshold as an alternative applicability cutoff. Eight commenters 
recommended that the emission threshold should be set at less than 1 
tpy of formaldehyde emissions. One commenter suggested that EPA should 
include a greater than 2 tpy formaldehyde applicability requirement.
    Response: The basis for this comment is the Oil and Natural Gas 
Production and Natural Gas Transmission and Storage NESHAP (promulgated 
on June 17, 1999). In that rule, HAP emissions from process vents at 
glycol dehydration units that are located at major HAP sources and from 
process vents at certain area source glycol dehydration units are 
required to be controlled unless the actual flowrate of natural gas in 
the unit is less than 85,000 cubic meters per day (3.0 million standard 
cubic feet per day), on an annual average basis, or the benzene 
emissions from the unit are less than 0.9 Mg/yr (1 tpy). The 1 tpy 
emission threshold in the Oil and Natural Gas Production and Natural 
Gas Transmission and Storage MACT is equivalent to the smallest size 
glycol dehydration unit with control of HAP emissions and is, 
therefore, based on equivalence, not risk.
    Comment: Multiple commenters expressed that the emission factors 
presented in Table 1 of the preamble should be removed, or wording 
should be added to acknowledge the use of factors from other sources. 
Three commenters said that EPA should not dictate emission factors for 
major source determination; owners and operators should be allowed to 
determine appropriate emission factors for their facility.
    Response: We agree with the commenter and have not included Table 1 
from the proposal preamble in the final rule. Table 1 was intended to 
simplify major source determination, e.g., facilities would not have to 
develop their own emission factors. We agree that all turbines may not 
fit the emissions mold as projected in Table 1. The use of the emission 
factors in Table 1 was intended to be optional; we were not dictating 
the use of these emission factors.
    The emission factors in Table 1 of the preamble to the proposed 
rule were based on emissions data from test reports that were reviewed 
and accepted by EPA according to a common set of acceptance criteria. 
However, we received several comments regarding the quality of the 
emissions data we used and as a result, performed an extensive review 
of tests used at proposal and new tests received during the comment 
period. As a result of that review, revised emission factors for 
stationary combustion turbines were calculated and are presented in a 
memorandum included in the rule docket (OAR-2002-0060, A-95-51). That 
memorandum has emission factors

[[Page 10518]]

for both high load and all load conditions. The emission standards in 
the final rule are based on data for high loads.
    We believe that the emission factors presented in the memorandum 
provide the most accurate information on stationary combustion turbine 
emission factors. However, caution should be used when using data 
collected using California Air Resources Board (CARB) Method 430 or EPA 
Method 0011 in determining applicability. We have used CARB 430 and EPA 
Method 0011 in developing emission factors but applied a bias factor to 
the data to make the emissions data comparable with emissions data 
measured by Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR).
    Comment: Multiple commenters supported the creation of a 
subcategory for limited use combustion turbines with a capacity 
utilization of 10 percent or less. One commenter expressed the view 
that the limited use subcategory should apply to all limited use 
combustion turbines, not just electric power peak shaving units.
    Three commenters supported the exemption for limited use units and 
EPA's finding that no emission reduction should be required for these 
units.
    Several commenters requested that EPA increase the allowable 
operating time for limited use turbines. One commenter recommended that 
the 50-hour allowance for limited use be increased to 200 hours to 
allow for maintenance checks. Two commenters stated that a more 
appropriate cut-off is 500 hours per year, which one commenter said is 
consistent with EPA policy for designating emergency engines for title 
V permits and is also appropriate because year-to-year variability in 
the utilization does not result in routine changes in a unit's status. 
A commenter also suggested that EPA could develop a more refined 
approach; for example, the cutoff for turbines greater than 10 MW could 
be 200 hours per year.
    One commenter said that if a 10 percent utilization is not 
implemented, the testing of combustion turbines to assure the unit will 
be operational when needed should be excluded from the operating limit, 
because these testing operations can range from weekly testing for more 
than 1 hour to several times each month.
    Two commenters contended that the subcategorization of limited use 
combustion turbines without controls is not protective of public 
health, because these combustion turbines operate mostly in the summer 
months when the public is more likely to be exposed to the emissions.
    Two commenters remarked that any subcategorization of limited use 
combustion turbines should include a permit requirement that these 
units operate less than 876 hours per year. To lower costs for these 
units, less onerous monitoring requirements such as periodic stack 
tests with a temperature sensor on the catalyst could be required.
    One commenter expressed the view that existing limited use 
combustion turbines might be exempted from the MACT emission limits, 
but new limited use combustion turbines should not be exempted. The 
commenter observed that in New Jersey, limited use units generally 
operate for less than 250 hours per year.
    Response: The preamble for the proposed rule included a subcategory 
for limited use stationary combustion turbines and defined them as 
operating 50 hours or less per calendar year. We solicited comments on 
creating a subcategory of limited use stationary combustion turbines 
with capacity utilization of 10 percent or less and used for electric 
power peak shaving. After considering all of the comments, we decided 
not to include a subcategory for limited use stationary combustion 
turbines in the final rule. A subcategory of limited use stationary 
combustion turbines with capacity utilization of 10 percent or less and 
used for electric power peak shaving was not created because these 
sources are similar sources to units equipped with add-on oxidation 
catalyst control, and their operation only during peak periods does not 
preclude them from being equipped with add-on oxidation catalyst 
control. In response to the comment regarding subcategorization of 
limited use combustion turbines not being protective of public health, 
our objective in subcategorizing is not to protect public health, but 
to establish groups of sources which share common characteristics that 
are related to the availability of potential emission control 
strategies. In any case, we have not adopted a limited use subcategory, 
because we determined that creation of such subcategory would not 
change the nature of the required controls.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that to be consistent with most 
other NESHAP, EPA should add an exemption for research and development 
to the final rule.
    Response: We agree that stationary combustion turbines located at a 
research or laboratory facility should not be subject to the NESHAP if 
research is conducted on the turbine itself and the turbine is not 
being used to power other applications at the research or laboratory 
facility. A definition of research or laboratory facility is included 
in the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter remarked that primary fuel is not defined in 
the rule. The commenter noted that applying the exemption only to 
turbines using landfill or digester gas as primary fuel is overly 
restrictive. The commenter suggested that the exemption should be for 
turbines with annual landfill and digester gas consumption of 10 
percent or more of the total fuel consumption on an annual basis based 
on gross heat input. Other commenters requested that the exemption for 
firing landfill or digester gas be expanded to include combustion 
turbines used at gasification plants.
    Response: We agree that it is appropriate to provide guidelines for 
the usage of landfill and digester gas. We have written the final rule 
to define turbines in the landfill and digester gas subcategory as 
those which burn landfill or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or 
more of the gross heat input on an annual basis. In the final rule, the 
subcategory for combustion turbines firing landfill or digester gas has 
been expanded to include units where gasified MSW is used to generate 
10 percent or more of the gross heat input to the turbine on an annual 
basis. We have specified in the final rule that new turbines in this 
subcategory must daily monitor their fuel usage with a separate fuel 
meter to measure the volume flow rate of each fuel. Finally, the final 
rule requires new combustion turbines in this subcategory to submit 
annual reports documenting the fuel flow rate of each fuel and the 
heating values used to calculate and demonstrate that the percentage of 
heat input provided by landfill, digester gas, or gasified MSW is 
equivalent to 10 percent or more of the total fuel consumption on an 
annual basis based on gross heat input.
    Comment: Several commenters urged EPA to add a subcategory to cover 
turbines installed north of the Arctic Circle (North Slope) and to 
specify no additional control requirements for the subcategory. The 
commenters stated that technologies identified for controlling HAP 
emissions from stationary combustion turbines are unproven or have met 
with limited success in northern Alaska above the Arctic Circle. Lean 
premix combustion turbines have met with limited success on the 
Alaska's North Slope. The annual average temperature above the Arctic 
Circle is approximately 10F, with winter temperatures 
that can drop below -50F. Turbine manufacturers have 
been required to ``de-tune'' the

[[Page 10519]]

lean premix turbines to ensure the integrity of the equipment at these 
cold ambient temperatures.
    One of the technical issues with lean premix operation at the North 
Slope is the very wide range of ambient temperatures over which the 
turbine must operate. A range of -50F to 
80F (130F range) is a very challenging 
requirement for turbine manufacturers. They have to employ various air 
bleed, inlet guide vane control, or fuel staging to allow them to 
operate at the cold extremes. Sites in Canada have reported having to 
tune their lean premix engines differently for the summer and winter 
months. Even when temperatures drop to extremely low levels in the 
lower 48 states, the duration of those low temperatures is normally 
measured in hours; on the North Slope it is not uncommon for equipment 
to have to endure months of severe cold. In addition to this large 
range, at the colder end of the range the airflow on some turbine 
models can be 40 percent higher than at the standard ISO design 
conditions of 60F, creating an especially acute problem 
in lean premix units. Turbine manufacturers with experience in the 
Arctic do not guarantee NOX and CO levels at cold ambient 
temperatures (below 0F). Therefore, lean premix turbines 
that can achieve low NOX emissions typical of the lower 48 
states' applications have not been demonstrated to be achievable north 
of the Arctic Circle. On the North Slope, less than 0F 
represents about one-half of the year.
    According to the commenters, vendors of CO oxidation catalysts have 
indicated that their products will perform adequately on the North 
Slope, but the technology has never been tried. To date, no CO 
oxidation catalyst has ever been installed on a turbine on the North 
Slope. It is unknown what impacts the extreme thermal conditions of 
North Slope operation will have on CO oxidation catalysts.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that a subcategory should be 
created for turbines installed north of the Arctic Circle to recognize 
their distinct differences. There is a substantial difference in 
temperature between the North Slope of Alaska and even the coldest 
areas in the lower 48 states. As noted by the commenters, turbine 
operators on the North Slope of Alaska have experienced problems with 
operation of the turbines in lean premix mode, and turbine 
manufacturers do not guarantee the performance of their turbines at the 
ambient temperatures typically found north of the Arctic Circle. In 
addition, no turbines on the North Slope of Alaska are equipped with 
oxidation catalyst control. Therefore, a subcategory for turbines north 
of the Arctic Circle has been established. The North Slope of Alaska is 
defined as above the Arctic Circle (latitude 66.5 
North). Stationary combustion turbines operated on the North Slope of 
Alaska are not required to meet the emission limitations. However, new 
or reconstructed stationary combustion turbines operated on the North 
Slope of Alaska must submit an initial notification.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed the view that the routine 
exchange of aeroderivative turbines for routine overhaul should not 
result in a facility becoming a new source. One commenter stated that 
EPA should provide an exemption for temporary replacement engines 
during routine rebuilds, and a mechanism to reduce the likelihood a 
source would suddenly trigger new source preconstruction review/
approval and MACT requirements arising from an unexpected repair or 
replacement of a stationary combustion turbine.
    Response: The definition of reconstructed turbine in the proposed 
rule is consistent with the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63. If an 
existing combustion turbine is refurbished to the extent that it meets 
the definition of reconstruction, then it should be considered a 
reconstructed source. We are not aware of any routine refurbishment for 
which the fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent 
of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a 
comparable new source.

B. Definitions

    Comment: One commenter requested that the definition of lean premix 
stationary combustion turbine be modified to recognize that fuel and 
air mixing may be occurring in the combustor of some lean premix 
combustion turbines. The definition should be modified to include these 
types of stationary combustion turbines that burn a lean mixture and 
thoroughly mix their fuel prior to combustion in the combustor.
    Response: We have written the definition of lean premix in the 
final rule to recognize that fuel and air mixing may be occurring in 
the combustor of some lean premix combustion turbines.
    Comment: Several commenters said that the definition of emergency 
stationary combustion turbine should include operational allowances for 
the periodic operation/testing to verify operational readiness. One 
commenter requested that the definition be clarified, or extended to 
allow for operations in anticipation of an emergency situation. Four 
commenters asked for clarification as to whether loss of power that 
constitutes an emergency is limited to power supplied to the facility 
as a whole or includes power supplied to portions of a facility.
    Response: We agree with the commenters who stated that readiness 
testing should be included in the definition of emergency operation. 
Accordingly, we have written the definition of emergency stationary 
combustion turbine to include allowances for readiness testing in the 
final rule. The routine testing and maintenance must be within limits 
recommended by the turbine manufacturer or other entity such as an 
insurance company. However, we disagree with the commenter who 
requested the definition to include operations in anticipation of an 
emergency situation. Exempt operations will be limited to emergency 
situations only. We agree that loss of power can include power supplied 
to portions of a facility, and we have, therefore, written the 
definition of stationary emergency combustion turbine in the final rule 
to make this clear.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended that the definition of 
``stationary combustion turbine'' include all appropriate associated 
equipment.
    Response: We agree with the commenters' suggestions and have 
written the definition of stationary combustion turbines in the final 
rule to reflect appropriate comments. The definition of a stationary 
combustion turbine does not include emissions control equipment.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for the definition of 
major source except that the phrase ``except when they are on the same 
surface site'' should be removed from the combustion turbine major 
source definition. This phrase is not present in the 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart HH, major source definition that is the template for the 
combustion turbine MACT major source definition. Section 112(n)(4) of 
the CAA requires that wells and associated equipment not be aggregated 
even within the same surface site except as provided in the combustion 
turbine MACT major source definition. In the combustion turbine MACT 
major source definition, the phrase ``storage vessel with flash 
emissions potential'' should be changed to ``storage vessel with the 
potential for flash emissions'' to conform to the 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart HH, definition.
    The commenter also stated that the General Provision major source

[[Page 10520]]

definition presented in the combustion turbine MACT is different from 
those found in the definition of major source in the NESHAP from Oil 
and Natural Gas Production Facilities (40 CFR 63.761). The significance 
of this difference is that sources that are area sources under subpart 
HH could possibly be rendered ``major sources'' under the combustion 
turbine MACT. The EPA should acknowledge this possibility in the 
preamble to the final rule and clearly state that this does not change 
the source's status under subpart HH or any other MACT. Another 
commenter recommended that the preamble clarify that the definition of 
major source in the combustion turbine MACT does not alter the 
definition of major source in subpart HH, and, therefore, does not 
affect subpart HH applicability.
    Response: We agree with the commenters and have written the major 
source definition in the final rule to reflect appropriate comment. We 
have acknowledged in the preamble to the final rule that the definition 
of major source in the final rule may be different from those found in 
other rules. However, this does not alter the definition of major 
source in other rules, and, therefore, does not affect the Oil and 
Natural Gas Production Facilities NESHAP (subpart HH of 40 CFR part 63) 
or any other rule applicability.
    Comment: One commenter observed that landfill and digester gas are 
defined in the proposed rule as being formed through anaerobic 
decomposition, which is usually but not always the case.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that landfill and digester 
gas are not always formed only through anaerobic decomposition. As a 
result, we have written the definition of landfill and digester gas in 
the final rule acknowledging that these gases are usually formed 
through anaerobic decomposition, but not always by inserting the word 
``typically'' in front of ``formed'' in both definitions.

C. Dates

    Comment: Two commenters stated that immediate compliance is 
unrealistic for new and reconstructed turbines and recommended a 1-year 
compliance timeframe. Other commenters recommended that the final rule 
allow 1 year to conduct the initial performance test, rather than the 
180 days provided by the 40 CFR part 63, General Provisions.
    Response: Immediate compliance is appropriate for new or 
reconstructed turbines and is consistent with the General Provisions of 
40 CFR part 63. Sources are required to install the proper equipment 
and meet the applicable emission limitations on startup. However, we 
allow sources 180 days to demonstrate compliance. We feel that 180 days 
is sufficient time to conduct the initial performance test, consistent 
with the General Provisions. Sources have the option to petition for 
additional time if necessary.
    Comment: One commenter requested that EPA allow a facility with 
identical combustion turbines to conduct performance tests on only one 
of the units to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits for all 
of the identical units.
    Response: We are not allowing facilities with identical combustion 
turbines to conduct performance tests on only one of the units to 
demonstrate compliance with the emission limits for all of the 
identical units because not all apparently identical facilities produce 
the same emissions. We have turned down many similar requests and have 
asked owners and operators to run stack tests on all individual units.
    Comment: Two commenters requested that the rule provide 1 year for 
initial notification of MACT applicability, as in the Oil and Natural 
Gas Production and the Natural Gas Transmission and Storage MACT, 
instead of 120 days.
    Response: We do not agree that 1 year is necessary for initial 
notification of MACT applicability. An initial notification is not a 
time consuming activity.

D. MACT

    Comment: Three commenters took issue with the MACT floor for new 
diffusion flame stationary combustion turbines. The commenters stated 
that no formaldehyde emissions data or oxidation catalyst control 
efficiency data were available to EPA to support setting the MACT floor 
for new diffusion flame stationary combustion turbines; newer models of 
turbines in the diffusion flame category should be evaluated to 
identify the best-performing unit.
    Response: At proposal, we had limited emissions data for stationary 
combustion turbines, including one test for a diffusion flame turbine 
with add-on HAP emission control, and we requested HAP emissions test 
data from stationary combustion turbines. We received new emissions 
data for diffusion flame turbines during the comment period, including 
an additional formaldehyde test on a diffusion flame unit equipped with 
add-on HAP emissions control. The new data also include several tests 
conducted using FTIR, which is regarded as the most accurate 
measurement method for formaldehyde for stationary combustion turbines. 
Thus, the data set has been significantly improved, both quantitatively 
and qualitatively, and we feel that the data set is sufficient to 
identify the best-performing unit.
    Based on comments and information received during the public 
comment period, the diffusion flame subcategory was divided further 
into subcategories for diffusion flame combustion turbines when firing 
gas and when firing oil at sites where all turbines fire oil for no 
more than 1000 hours annually (``diffusion flame gas-fired turbines'') 
and for diffusion flame combustion turbines when firing oil at sites 
where all turbines fire oil more than 1000 hours annually (``diffusion 
flame oil-fired turbines'').
    In addition, based on information received during the public 
comment period indicating that oxidation catalysts are in use on some 
existing diffusion flame combustion turbines, we reevaluated the MACT 
floor for new turbines in each of the diffusion flame subcategories.
    Comment: One commenter contended that the MACT floor for existing 
diffusion flame is unlawful because EPA did not identify the best 
performing sources or determine the emission levels they are achieving; 
EPA merely considered whether or not they are equipped with a catalyst. 
The commenter stated that whether or not the relevant best sources are 
equipped with control equipment, they are achieving some emission 
level, and EPA must determine the average emission level they are 
achieving and set floors at that level.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that all factors which might 
control HAP emissions must be considered in making a floor 
determination for each subcategory, and that this analysis cannot be 
properly limited to add-on controls. However, we disagree that it must 
express the floor as a quantitative emission level in those instances 
where the source on which the floor determination is based has not 
adopted or implemented any measure that would reduce emissions. In this 
instance, we decided to subcategorize within diffusion flame combustion 
turbines based on the fuel which is used, because the composition of 
HAP emissions differs materially based on whether gas or oil is used. 
We then determined for each subcategory of diffusion flame combustion 
turbines that emissions of each HAP are relatively homogenous across 
that subcategory, and that there are not any

[[Page 10521]]

adjustments of the turbines or other operational modifications except 
for the use of add-on controls which would be effective in reducing HAP 
emissions. Since the source on which the floor for existing sources in 
each subcategory of diffusion flame turbines is based has not installed 
such add-on controls, we determined that the MACT floor for each such 
subcategory requires no emission reductions. We have also established 
fuel-based subcategories within lean premix combustion turbines, and 
have made a comparable determination that the MACT floor for existing 
sources within each of these subcategories requires no emission 
reductions.
    Comment: One commenter said that the MACT floor for new diffusion 
flame units is unlawful because EPA did not identify the best-
performing diffusion flame combustion turbine and the floor does not 
reflect what that source achieved in practice. According to the 
commenter, EPA ignored other factors that affect a source's performance 
(fuel, design, age, maintenance, operator training, skill and care, 
differences in effectiveness of catalysts). The performance of all 
sources using an oxidation catalyst is not the same and cannot possibly 
reflect the performance of the single best source.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the standard for new 
sources within each subcategory must be based on the emission levels 
achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. However, we 
think that the performance in reducing emissions by the best controlled 
source will not be uniform, and that it would be inappropriate to 
establish a standard which could not be consistently met even by the 
source upon which the standard is based. We, therefore, believe that 
there must be some allowance made for the intrinsic variability in the 
effectiveness of controls in the standard we establish. We do not think 
that the performance of oxidation catalysts differs as much from one 
turbine to the next as suggested by the commenter, and we believe that 
the emission control levels achieved in practice by catalysts on 
differing turbines is one factor we may appropriately consider in 
evaluating the variability in emission control levels which is 
intrinsic to catalyst operation.
    Comment: One commenter observed that EPA stated that it considered 
fuel switching but could not find a less HAP emitting fuel. The EPA's 
own data show that combustion turbines burning fuel oil have higher 
benzene and xylene emissions than combustion turbines firing natural 
gas or landfill gas. Had EPA tested other HAP, it would likely have 
found that fuel oil produces higher levels of those HAP as well. The 
EPA has already found the entire diesel exhaust stream to be hazardous.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the composition of HAP 
emissions are different for combustion turbines firing natural gas and 
combustion turbines firing oil. We have evaluated both the data we had 
prior to proposal and the data received since proposal; the test data 
support the conclusion that HAP emissions are different for different 
fuels for stationary diffusion flame units. Uncontrolled formaldehyde 
emissions are in general lower as a result of the combustion of 
distillate oil than for natural gas. Other differences in emissions 
between natural gas and distillate oil include higher levels of 
pollutants such as PAH and metals for stationary combustion turbines 
burning distillate oil.
    We proposed one subcategory for combustion turbines using lean 
premix technology and another subcategory for combustion turbines using 
diffusion flame technology. However, in recognition of the clear 
differences we found in the composition of HAP emissions depending on 
the fuel that is used, we have determined that it is appropriate to 
subcategorize further based on fuel use. In devising appropriate 
subcategories based on fuel use, we need to consider that many 
combustion turbines are configured both to use natural gas and 
distillate oil. These dual fuel units typically burn natural gas as 
their primary fuel, and only utilize distillate oil as a backup. To 
limit the frequency of switching between subcategories caused by 
limited usage of a backup fuel, we have defined the gas subcategories 
in a manner which permits combustion turbines that fire gas to remain 
in the gas subcategory if all turbines at the site in question fire oil 
no more than a total of 1000 hours during the calendar year.
    Comment: Several commenters took issue with the methodology and 
data used to set the MACT floors for lean premix units. Two commenters 
contended that EPA's determination of the floor for existing lean 
premix turbines is fundamentally flawed, and that reliance on a single 
data point and the assumptions made to compensate for the inherent 
error and variability is not appropriate. It was suggested that EPA 
must obtain additional information before it can set a floor.
    Two commenters stated that data from all five combustion turbines 
should be used to set the MACT floor for existing lean premix turbines. 
One commenter determined that the formaldehyde limit should be 219 ppb 
if EPA declines to set the floor as no emission reduction.
    Several commenters remarked than the MACT floor for new and 
existing lean premix turbines does not reflect a reasonable estimate of 
formaldehyde emissions achieved in practice by the best-performing 
source; EPA should adjust the MACT floor to reflect formaldehyde 
emissions reasonably expected over the operating range of the best-
performing lean premix turbine. One commenter observed that EPA's use 
of the performance test of one ``best'' lean premix unit is not 
statistically viable and does not meet the statutory requirement for 
setting the MACT floor.
    Two commenters said that EPA's emission standard for lean premix 
combustion turbines is unlawful and EPA should establish a ``no 
control'' emission limitation. It was also stated that EPA did not 
determine that the best performers in the subcategory were 
``controlling'' their emissions in a duplicable manner. They stated 
that EPA improperly set the floor for the existing lean premix 
subcategory; EPA based the floor on the performance of the best source 
for which it had data, instead of basing it on the average emission 
limitation of the five sources for which it had data. They also stated 
that all of the variability that either the best performers will 
experience or that will affect the attainability of emissions had not 
been considered and suggested that EPA consider the normal turbine 
variations based on time, fuel, location, weather, and the 
repeatability of testing and monitoring methods.
    Response: As previously discussed, we had limited emissions data at 
proposal for stationary combustion turbines. We had five tests for 
formaldehyde emissions for lean premix combustion turbines, none of 
which were on lean premix units with add-on HAP emission control. We 
received new emissions data for lean premix turbines, including two 
formaldehyde tests on a lean premix unit equipped with add-on HAP 
emissions control. The new data also include several tests conducted 
using FTIR, which is regarded as the most accurate measurement method 
for formaldehyde for stationary combustion turbines. Thus, the data set 
has been significantly improved, both quantitatively and qualitatively, 
and EPA believes that the data set is sufficient to identify the best-
performing unit.
    Also, as discussed previously, we decided that it is appropriate to 
subcategorize based on fuel within the subcategories for diffusion 
flame and lean premix combustion turbines. We have established 
subcategories for lean

[[Page 10522]]

premix combustion turbines when firing gas and when firing oil at sites 
where all turbines fire oil for no more than 1000 hours annually 
(``lean premix gas-fired turbines''), and for lean premix combustion 
turbines when firing oil at sites where all turbines fire oil more than 
1000 hours annually (``lean premix oil-fired turbines'').
    As a result of comments and the new data submitted post-proposal, 
we also have reevaluated the MACT floor for both existing and new 
turbines in each of the lean premix subcategories.
    Comment: One commenter said that the MACT floor for existing lean 
premix combustion turbines is unlawful. The floor (formaldehyde) is at 
a level far worse than the emission levels achieved by the best source. 
The 95 percent reduction standard is unlawful because it does not even 
purport to reflect the actual emission levels achieved by the relevant 
best sources. The commenter also stated that CO is not a valid 
surrogate.
    Response: We reevaluated the MACT floor for existing gas-fired and 
oil-fired LPC units as a result of comments and the new data submitted 
post-proposal. We do not agree that CO reduction is not a valid 
surrogate for HAP reduction, however, the alternative CO emission 
limitation has been removed from the final rule due to CO measurement 
difficulties. Thus, the commenter's concerns are moot. We have 
determined that formaldehyde is an appropriate and valid surrogate for 
each of the organic HAP that can be controlled by a catalyst, and that 
the standard for such organic HAP can be reasonably expressed in terms 
of formaldehyde emissions measured after exiting any control device.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the MACT floor for new lean 
premix units does not reflect the actual performance of the single best 
source.
    Response: As explained above, we believe that we must accommodate 
intrinsic variability in performance when setting a standard which is 
based on the performance of the best controlled similar source. It 
would make no sense to adopt a standard based on the best controlled 
source which could not be consistently met even by that source.
    Comment: One commenter remarked that for MACT, EPA's rejection of 
potential control technologies that might be applied, including wet 
scrubbers, dry scrubbers, and activated carbon, without even 
considering them is unlawful, and that EPA's argument that a greater 
degree of reduction could not be achieved through the use of clean 
fuels is unlawful.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the effect of the choice 
of natural gas or fuel oil on the composition of HAP emissions is 
significant, and we have, therefore, subcategorized further within both 
lean premix and diffusion flame turbines based on which of these fuels 
is used. We are not aware of any data indicating that HAP emissions 
could be consistently reduced by selection of particular clean fuels 
within these general fuel groups. As for the other novel emission 
control technologies to which the commenter refers, we do not believe 
that these technologies are in use on any combustion turbine and we do 
not consider any sources utilizing such controls to be similar sources. 
Moreover, we are unable based on available information to determine 
that these technologies would be both efficacious and cost effective in 
reducing HAP emissions from combustion turbines.
    Comment: One commenter remarked that for existing emergency, 
limited use, landfill or digester gas fired, and less than 1 MW units, 
EPA did not set a floor that reflects the emission levels that the best 
performing sources actually achieved. The EPA has not identified the 
relevant best performing sources and has not determined the average 
emission limitation achieved by such sources, therefore, EPA's floors 
for these sources are unlawful.
    Response: We have not decided to establish a limited use 
subcategory. For the emergency, landfill or digester gas fired, and 
less than 1 MW subcategories, we have not identified any adjustments or 
other operational modifications that would materially reduce emissions 
by these units and we have determined that no add-on controls are 
presently in use. In these circumstances, we believe that we have 
appropriately established the floors for these sources as no emission 
reduction.
    Comment: One commenter said that for new emergency, limited use, 
landfill or digester gas fired, and less than 1 MW units, the floor is 
unlawful because EPA did not identify the single best controlled source 
in any of these subcategories and did not set floors reflecting such 
source's actual performance.
    Response: As noted above, we have not decided to establish a 
limited use subcategory. For the emergency, landfill or digester gas 
fired, and less than 1 MW subcategories, we have not identified any 
adjustments or operational modifications that would materially reduce 
emissions by these units and we have determined that no add-on controls 
are presently in use. We also have determined because of the specific 
characteristics of turbines in these subcategories that the turbines in 
other subcategories that utilize add-on controls are not similar 
sources. In these circumstances, we believe that we have appropriately 
determined that the new source MACT floor for these subcategories 
should also be no emission reduction.
    Comment: One commenter contended that EPA's rejection of beyond the 
floor standards for new emergency, limited use, landfill or digester 
gas fired, and less than 1 MW units is arbitrary and capricious. The 
EPA does not state the cost of applying any control technology or 
indicate the quantity of the HAP that would be reduced.
    Response: We believe that the record includes analysis 
demonstrating that it is not cost effective to require HAP controls for 
turbines in instances where no similar source has installed such 
controls.
    Comment: One commenter said that EPA's proposal is unlawful because 
EPA must set standards for each listed HAP. Oxidation catalyst control 
devices do not control many of the HAP that combustion turbines emit, 
for example metals.
    Response: We do not agree that it is required to establish a 
discrete standard for each listed HAP. However, we do agree that each 
listed HAP must be separately considered by EPA, both in determining 
the MACT floors and in establishing the emission standards for each 
subcategory. If emissions of a particular HAP are relatively homogenous 
for a particular subcategory, and there are no adjustments or 
operational modifications except for add-on controls which would reduce 
emissions of that HAP, the MACT floor and the emission standard for 
that HAP may be expressed as a level of emission reduction 
corresponding to the efficacy of add-on controls. Moreover, if the data 
demonstrate that control of emissions of a particular HAP is a suitable 
surrogate for control of emissions of a group of listed HAP, we may 
appropriately set the standard in terms of a level of emission 
reduction or an emission level for that particular HAP.
    In establishing new source standards for certain subcategories, we 
determined that formaldehyde is an appropriate surrogate for the other 
organic HAP which are also controlled by an oxidation catalyst. While 
use of an oxidation catalyst does not control the metallic HAP which 
are emitted by turbines burning distillate oil, there are no combustion 
turbines or similar sources utilizing other technologies to

[[Page 10523]]

control metallic HAP. Moreover, we do not believe it would be practical 
or cost effective to require control of these metallic HAP and, 
therefore, the floor and the standard for each metallic HAP was 
appropriately set at no emission reduction.
    Comment: One commenter noted that EPA's floors must reflect the 
average emission levels achieved by the relevant best sources. Thus, 
even if some of the relevant best sources are not using any control 
device, the agency must average their performance with that of the 
relevant best sources that are using a control device. That some of the 
relevant best performers are not using an end-of-stack control 
technology does not allow EPA to discount the performance of other best 
performers that are using such technology.
    Response: We do not agree with the premise of this commenter that 
the existing source MACT floor (the average emission limitation 
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources or the 
best performing five existing sources in subcategories with fewer than 
30 sources) must be calculated by determining the arithmetic average of 
the emission limitations achieved individually by each of these 
sources. We have consistently construed the statute to permit us to 
determine the average emission limitation by selecting the median 
facility among the best performing 12 percent or five existing sources. 
We think this well-established construction of the statute is 
reasonable, because an arithmetic average will quite often not coincide 
with the level of emission reduction that has been achieved in practice 
by any real facility. We do not think it is appropriate to establish an 
existing source MACT floor which may not be achievable by most of the 
sources from which it was derived. Nor do we think it is required to 
set a standard which is less stringent than most of the sources from 
which it is derived are achieving. Use of the emission limitation 
achieved by the median facility avoids these problems.

E. Emission Limitations

    Comment: Many commenters stated that the final rule should only 
apply emission standards to the load range represented by the emissions 
data used to determine emission limitations.
    Response: The emission standards are based on data from testing at 
high loads (90 percent and greater). To address the concerns expressed 
by the commenters about the emission standards being applicable at full 
load only, the final rule specifies that the performance test must be 
conducted at high load conditions, defined as 100 percent 10 percent.
    Comment: Many commenters took issue with the data used to set the 
formaldehyde emission limitation. The commenters noted that the test 
reports used to set the limit used two different test methods and that 
the limit was based on only five data points and, therefore, does not 
reflect a level of performance that is achievable for all sources. One 
commenter said that EPA has not provided enough data to know 
definitively what the standard should be. Another commenter stated that 
EPA must obtain additional information before it can set a floor.
    The commenters also had concerns about possible errors in the test 
reports that are the source of the emissions data used to set the 
formaldehyde emission limitation. One commenter said that close 
examination of the five reports uncovers questions regarding the actual 
test procedures, comparability, data reduction and data reporting that 
should be revisited before finalizing the formaldehyde concentration 
limit. They stated that all five reports appear to have calculation 
errors and/or other data quality issues that significantly affect the 
reported formaldehyde concentration, the comparability of the results 
because different test methods were used, and/or uncertainty associated 
with the average result. One commenter also reviewed the five tests 
used to set the standard and found that all of the five tests used do 
not present valid quantitative results; and that data from these tests 
may not be used to establish a quantitative emission standard for 
formaldehyde emissions from lean premix combustion turbines.
    One commenter said that CARB 430 may report anomalously low 
formaldehyde emissions; therefore, the standard may be too stringent 
and unachievable in practice. Two commenters questioned whether the 
CARB 430 data used to develop the standard followed CARB method 
requirements. One commenter believed that the results from all tests 
used to determine the MACT floor should be recalculated using CARB 430 
procedures so the data can be justifiably compared and that results 
should also be recalculated using the American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers measurement uncertainty analysis procedure. The EPA should 
then use these results for establishing the formaldehyde concentration 
limit. The commenter estimated that an enforceable formaldehyde 
concentration limit should be in the range of approximately 100 to 500 
ppb.
    One commenter said that a single emission test does not fully 
reflect the variability that will be seen by the best performing source 
employing any technology. The EPA should properly assess variability 
that may be experienced by the best performing sources under the worst 
foreseeable conditions that are expected to recur. Emission testing 
conducted by the commenter in conjunction with the Gas Turbine 
Institute indicates that 43 ppb is not achievable for small industrial 
and aeroderivative turbines.
    Several commenters suggested a revised level for the emission 
limitation. One commenter said that EPA must revise the limit upward to 
at least 63 ppb. Two commenters stated that additional formaldehyde 
data suggests that EPA should consider setting the emission standard to 
90 ppbvd given the tremendous variability in the few measurements that 
are available. One commenter submitted a summary table of data for nine 
tests conducted on lean premix combustion turbines. The test results 
show a variability between high and low loads of 34 percent; also, six 
out of nine tests were above 43 ppb.
    Response: As a result of comments received during the comment 
period, we performed an extensive review of tests used at proposal and 
new tests received during the comment period. A screening analysis of 
the formaldehyde test data for diffusion flame combustor turbines was 
conducted. Tests conducted using CARB 430 were evaluated due to the 
CARB advisory issued April 28, 2000, which stated that formaldehyde 
data measured by CARB 430 where the NOX emissions were 
greater than 50 ppm should be flagged as non-quantitative. Tests where 
the NOX emissions were greater than 50 ppm, or tests where 
the NOX levels were unknown, were excluded from our 
analysis. Most of the diffusion flame tests in the EPA's combustion 
turbine emissions database were unable to pass the screening. The tests 
unable to pass the screening were not equipped with add-on control for 
the reduction of HAP.
    The remaining test reports were further analyzed and reviewed to 
ensure the methods were used correctly in calculating and reporting 
formaldehyde concentrations and to check that proper quality assurance 
(QA)/quality control (QC) procedures were followed. A number of errors 
were found in the test reports where CARB 430 was used to quantify 
formaldehyde concentrations. In several instances, the CARB 430 
reporting protocol was not followed. If the analytical concentration is 
less than five times the average field blank, then CARB 430 uses five 
times the field

[[Page 10524]]

blank as the reported result to correct for interferences or 
contaminants that can react with the formaldehyde or 
dinitrophenylhydrazine to yield negative bias. However, many test 
reports did not report formaldehyde concentrations in this fashion. The 
formaldehyde concentrations were, therefore, recalculated where the 
CARB 430 reporting protocol was not followed correctly.
    No errors were found in test reports which used FTIR to measure 
formaldehyde concentrations in the stationary combustion turbine 
exhaust. The reported formaldehyde concentrations were representative 
of stationary combustion turbines and the measured QA/QC parameters 
were within acceptable limits as set in the method.
    We agree that CARB 430 generally understates the formaldehyde 
concentration in the exhaust gas from stationary combustion turbines. 
Since EPA Method 0011 is a similar method to CARB 430, it is believed 
that Method 0011 also understates the emissions of formaldehyde. We 
feel that FTIR is a more accurate and reliable method than CARB 430. 
Several test reports were received during the comment period on recent 
testing on small lean premix combustion turbines which used both CARB 
430 and FTIR to measure formaldehyde emissions. An analysis was 
conducted to correlate formaldehyde concentrations measured by CARB 430 
and formaldehyde concentrations measured by FTIR. A linear regression 
was performed on the CARB 430 and FTIR formaldehyde data from these 
tests which gave a slope of 1.667 with a correlation coefficient of 
0.561. Therefore, we concluded that CARB 430 formaldehyde results are 
on average 1.7 times lower than FTIR formaldehyde results. To account 
for the differences in the methods, a bias factor of 1.7 was applied to 
the CARB 430 and Method 0011 formaldehyde emissions data to make these 
data comparable to FTIR.
    As a result of a complete data review, including emissions data we 
had at proposal and new emissions data we received during the comment 
period, we currently have a very different data set as compared to what 
we had at proposal. For example, the amount of data for lean premix 
units increased, while the amount of data for diffusion flame units 
decreased. As discussed previously, the new data set was used to 
determine the MACT floors. For new lean premix gas-fired turbines and 
new lean premix oil-fired turbines, a formaldehyde emission limitation 
of 91 ppb was established for the MACT floor. It is felt that this 
emission limitation will be achievable for both small and large size 
combustion turbines. We considered establishing separate subcategories 
by size but found that there was little difference in emissions among 
the best performing small and large units. The best performing large 
lean premix unit was controlled by an oxidation catalyst, and EPA had 
data from two separate tests of this turbine. Formaldehyde emissions 
were measured at 19 and 91 ppb. The best performing small lean premix 
unit (less than 25 MW) had uncontrolled formaldehyde emissions of 68 
ppb, which is within the range of emissions for the large lean premix 
unit.
    We have adequately considered the variability in emissions by the 
best performing source. We have emissions data for two tests for the 
best performing turbine in the lean premix gas-fired turbine 
subcategory; the formaldehyde emissions varied by a factor of five 
between the two tests. Since both tests were performed under similar 
conditions but at different times, they represent the variability of 
the best performing unit. The MACT floor for this subcategory was set 
based on the higher formaldehyde measurement, thus the variability of 
the best performing unit has been accounted for. Similar variability 
factors were applied for the other subcategories. This is explained 
further in section III.E.

F. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

    Comment: Multiple commenters requested that the CO continuous 
emission monitoring system (CEMS) requirement be removed and periodic 
testing/parametric monitoring be adopted. Some commenters cited the 
cost burden of a CEMS, and others noted that a requirement for CO CEMS 
imposes an excessive cost burden for smaller turbines. One commenter 
also noted that CEMS have typically not been required on small turbines 
and personnel would not be familiar with CEMS operation and 
maintenance, resulting in increased capital and operating costs. 
Furthermore, one commenter felt that there would not be significant 
emissions reduction for the use of CEMS compared to the use of inlet 
temperature monitoring and periodic emission testing, the requirement 
is inconsistent with previous EPA decisions on monitoring, and there 
are deficiencies in the test methods and performance protocols. One 
commenter questioned whether the low measurements can be made 
accurately and reliably on a continuous basis without jeopardizing the 
flexibility of facility operations.
    Many commenters recommended alternatives to the CO CEMS 
requirement. One commenter suggested the option of monitoring 
compliance with a one-time performance test for CO. One commenter said 
that an option could be reliance on a Federal CO permit limit combined 
with periodic CO stack testing. If the permitted CO limit is relatively 
high, compliance with the formaldehyde limit at that level could first 
be determined using an initial formaldehyde test. If the CO limits/
concentration are low, initial formaldehyde testing should not be 
necessary. The commenter recommended that EPA establish a default 
minimum compliance demonstration at 5 parts per million (ppm). One 
commenter recommended that EPA evaluate periodic stack tests, conducted 
on the same schedule as relative accuracy test audit (RATA) testing as 
an alternative to CEMS. At a minimum, this approach should be pursued 
for units with oxidation catalyst systems that would qualify as peaking 
units under the Acid Rain Program and are not otherwise required to 
conduct emissions monitoring for CO or other pollutants.
    One commenter said that a more workable solution would be to 
measure downstream CO, but only if a CEMS is already required for 
NOX. A catalyst efficiency test could be performed 
periodically to confirm continued reduction efficiency (an option to 
perform this check with portable analyzer should be included). One 
commenter said that if EPA includes an option to monitor CO emissions 
using CPMS rather than CO CEMS, a requirement to replace a catalyst bed 
when the pressure drop increases by more than 2 inches of water from 
the drop measured during the initial performance test may not be 
appropriate. Particular vendors are better able to specify the 
conditions under which catalyst replacement is warranted.
    Response: In the preamble for the proposed rule, we solicited 
comments on the performance capabilities of a state-of-the-art CO CEMS 
and its ability to measure the low concentrations of CO in the exhaust 
of a stationary combustion turbine following an oxidation catalyst 
control device. In general, commenters did not support CO CEMS, stating 
that existing CO CEMS technology and EPA performance criteria are not 
adequate to reliably and accurately measure trace levels of CO. Due to 
the CO measurement difficulties, EPA has decided not to include the CO

[[Page 10525]]

emission reduction limitation in the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter remarked that subsequent performance testing 
(suggest no more frequent than annually) is needed for units meeting 
the formaldehyde limit, and that there should also be some methodology 
for the demonstration of continuous compliance.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that subsequent performance 
testing is needed for units meeting the formaldehyde limit. The final 
rule includes a requirement for annual performance testing for units 
meeting the formaldehyde limit and designated requirements for 
continuous compliance. For sources equipped with oxidation catalyst 
control, continuous compliance will be demonstrated by continuously 
monitoring the inlet temperature to the catalyst and maintaining the 
inlet temperature within the range suggested by the catalyst 
manufacturer. Sources that are not equipped with oxidation catalyst 
control must petition the Administrator for approval of operating 
limitations or approval of no operating limitations.
    Comment: One commenter said that EPA should allow facilities to use 
existing test data to demonstrate compliance with the emission 
limitation if the test was conducted using the same methods specified 
in the rule and no process changes have been made since the test, or it 
can be demonstrated that the results of the performance test reliably 
demonstrate compliance despite process changes.
    Response: Since there are no emission limitation requirements for 
existing sources in the final rule, we expect that few facilities will 
have existing test data to demonstrate compliance. Facilities that came 
online after the proposal would be the only sources that may have 
conducted emissions testing prior to the stack testing requirements of 
the final rule, and we will allow facilities to use existing test data 
to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitation if the 
data is of good quality and is no older than 2 years. (After the 
initial compliance demonstration, facilities must then begin to follow 
the annual compliance test schedule.) The facility must petition the 
Administrator for approval and demonstrate that the tests were 
conducted using the same test methods specified in the subpart, the 
test method procedures were correctly followed, no process or equipment 
changes have been made since the test, and the data are of good quality 
and less than 2 years old. This has been specified in the final rule.

G. Test Methods

    Comment: Several commenters expressed concern regarding the 
accuracy and precision of CARB Method 430 at levels commensurate with 
the proposed standard. Two commenters noted that CARB Method 430 is 
susceptible to interferences. One commenter said that sample loss and 
measurement uncertainties can contribute to large measurement 
variability. Another commenter contended that CARB Method 430 is an 
indirect measurement method and is inferior to Method 320. This 
commenter also said that CARB Method 430 cannot give realistic results.
    Response: New information provided during the public comment period 
where CARB 430 and FTIR were concurrently tested showed that CARB 430 
using the CARB reporting protocol is biased low by a factor of 1.7 
compared to FTIR. Therefore, we agree with the commenters' concerns 
regarding the accuracy of CARB Method 430 and that it is an indirect 
measurement method, however, EPA disagrees that CARB Method 430 cannot 
give realistic results. In some cases, we believe that CARB Method 430 
can provide realistic results. However, we also agree that FTIR would 
be the better compliance method. Therefore, we have specified Method 
320 and ASTM D6348-03 as the compliance procedures in the final rule.
    Comment: Several issues were raised in the comments received 
regarding EPA Method 0011. One commenter did not support the use of EPA 
Method 0011 for combustion turbines because there is no need for 
isokinetic sampling in combustion turbine stacks, compared to CARB 
Method 430 the field procedure is more complex, the potential for 
chronic field contamination is much greater, the QA/QC procedures are 
vastly inferior, the data reporting procedures especially with respect 
to blanks are more vague, and the method does not have sufficient 
sensitivity for demonstrating compliance with the proposed formaldehyde 
limit.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that the method has many 
shortcomings and limited application opportunities for use in measuring 
formaldehyde emissions from stationary combustion turbines. 
Accordingly, we are not including EPA Method 0011 in the final rule. 
Both EPA Method 0011 and CARB Method 430 can be requested on a case-by-
case basis as part of EPA's alternative method review process.
    Comment: Several commenters did not support Method 323. The 
commenters said that the method should not be used for measuring very 
low concentrations of formaldehyde. The minimum detection levels of the 
method are not suitable for the emission standards. Two commenters also 
noted that the method has not been validated or demonstrated for use on 
combustion turbines with low ppb range formaldehyde emissions.
    Response: We agree with commenters that Method 323 should not be 
used for measuring low concentrations of formaldehyde from combustion 
turbines. Therefore, we are not including Method 323 in the final rule.
    Comment: Numerous commenters said that CO CEMS cannot reliably 
measure trace level CO concentrations and 95 percent CO reduction. One 
commenter remarked that EPA provides no information to show that CEMS 
are available to accurately measure low CO concentrations, and the use 
of CO CEMS for low levels is well beyond the scope of current 40 CFR 
part 60 CEMS performance standards. Also, vendor claims for CO CEMS and 
CO instrumental analyzers, unless accompanied by emissions test data 
obtained under known and controlled conditions applicable to the 
subject source type, should not be considered adequate proof of 
availability and performance.
    Response: We agree that existing CO CEMS technology and EPA 
performance criteria are not adequate to reliably and accurately 
measure trace levels of CO. The American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) is currently trying to address this issue, with 
participation by EPA. The requirement for CO CEMS has not been included 
in the final rule.
    Comment: Three commenters sought an allowance for site specific 
emission limits where duct burners are utilized and the formaldehyde 
limit applies. Three commenters recommended that facilities should be 
allowed to either accept the formaldehyde limit at the stack with the 
duct burner in operation, or be allowed to petition the EPA for an 
alternate (higher) formaldehyde limit for the combined turbine/duct 
burner co-firing.
    Response: We have included the commenters' suggestions that 
facilities be allowed to accept the formaldehyde limit at the stack 
with the duct burner in operation in the final rule; however, it is not 
necessary to specify in the final rule that affected sources are 
allowed to petition EPA for an alternate formaldehyde limit.

H. Risk-Based Approaches

    The preamble to the proposed rule requested comment on whether 
there might be further ways to structure the

[[Page 10526]]

final rule to focus on the facilities which pose significant risks and 
avoid the imposition of high costs on facilities that pose little risk 
to public health and the environment. Specifically, we requested 
comment on the technical and legal viability of three risk-based 
approaches: an applicability cutoff for threshold pollutants under the 
authority of CAA section 112(d)(4), subcategorization and delisting 
under the authority of CAA section 112(c)(1) and (9), and, a 
concentration-based applicability threshold.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 68 FR 1276 (January 9, 2003) (Plywood and Composite Wood 
Products Proposed NESHAP) and docket number A-98-44 (White Papers 
submitted to EPA outlining the risk-based approaches).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We indicated that we would evaluate all comments before determining 
whether either approach would be included in the final rule. Numerous 
commenters submitted detailed comments on these risk-based approaches. 
These comments are summarized in the Response-to-Comments document (see 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section).
    Based on our consideration of the comments received and other 
factors, we have decided not to include the risk-based approaches in 
today's final rule. The risk-based approaches described in the proposed 
rule and addressed in the comments we received raise a number of 
complex issues. In addition, we must issue the final rule expeditiously 
because the statutory deadline for promulgation has passed, and we have 
agreed to a binding schedule in a consent decree entered in Sierra Club 
v. Whitman, Civil Action No. 1:01CV01537 (D.D.C.). Given the range of 
issues raised by the risk-based approaches and the need to promulgate a 
final rule expeditiously, we believe that it is appropriate not to 
include any risk-based approaches in today's final rule.

I. Other

    Comment: Two commenters remarked that EPA's declaration that diesel 
fired turbines cannot be operated in the lean premix mode is a 
misstatement. While some manufacturers, on some models, only offer 
liquid fuel capability in diffusion flame mode, other manufacturers 
have offered the dual fuel option on lean premix turbines since the 
mid-1990's. One commenter stated that the standard should be modified 
because of the dual fuel capability of combustion turbines. The 
commenter noted that EPA has no data to represent lean premix liquid 
fuel operation and, therefore, cannot determine an appropriate 
standard.
    Response: At the time the NESHAP were proposed, we were not aware 
of the availability of diesel fired turbines that operated in the lean 
premix mode. We have since contacted several turbine manufacturers in 
an attempt to obtain more information about these units, and two 
manufacturers confirmed that they do offer diesel firing while 
operating in lean premix mode. The commenter is correct that we have no 
emissions test data for lean premix units firing liquid fuel, however, 
information provided by the manufacturers indicated that their emission 
guarantees for CO and hydrocarbons were similar for both natural gas 
and diesel. Also, testing on dual fuel diffusion flame units shows that 
formaldehyde emissions are actually lower for distillate oil firing. 
Therefore, we have established an emission standard for lean premix 
oil-fired units in the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter observed that HAP emissions from sources 
burning natural gas are enormously different from sources burning other 
fuels such as diesel. The commenter questioned EPA's argument that the 
summation of emission factors for various HAP for different fuels is 
comparable. The commenter also said that EPA does not explain what the 
summation of emission factors means or how it might be relevant to 
EPA's floors for any HAP.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the composition of HAP 
emissions from sources burning natural gas is different than from 
sources burning diesel fuel. Uncontrolled formaldehyde emissions are in 
general lower as a result of the combustion of distillate oil than for 
natural gas. Other differences in emissions between natural gas and 
distillate oil include higher levels of pollutants such as PAH and 
metals for stationary combustion turbines burning distillate oil. We 
agree that the summation of emission factors for various HAP for 
different fuels may be different. As discussed in the response to 
previous comments, due to the differences in HAP emissions, 
subcategories based on fuel were established for both diffusion flame 
and lean premix turbines.

IV. Rationale for Selecting the Final Standards

A. How Did We Select the Source Category and Any Subcategories?

    Stationary combustion turbines can be major sources of HAP 
emissions and, as a result, we listed them as a major source category 
for regulatory development under section 112 of the CAA, which allows 
us to establish subcategories within a source category for the purpose 
of regulation. Consequently, we evaluated several criteria associated 
with stationary combustion turbines which might serve as potential 
subcategories.
    We identified emergency stationary combustion turbines as a 
subcategory. Emergency stationary combustion turbines operate only in 
emergencies, such as a loss of power provided by another source. These 
types of stationary combustion turbines operate infrequently and, when 
called upon to operate, must respond without failure and without 
lengthy periods of startup. These conditions limit the applicability of 
HAP emission control technology to emergency stationary combustion 
turbines.
    Similarly, 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 MSW is used to generate 10 percent 
or more of the gross heat input to the stationary combustion turbine on 
an annual basis were identified as a subcategory. Landfill gas, 
digester gas, and gasified MSW contain a family of chemicals referred 
to as siloxanes, which limit the application of HAP emission control 
technology.
    Stationary combustion turbines of less than 1 MW rated peak power 
output were also identified as a subcategory. We believe these small 
stationary combustion turbines are few in number. These small 
stationary combustion turbines are sufficiently dissimilar from larger 
combustion turbines that we cannot evaluate the feasibility of emission 
control technology based on information concerning the larger turbines. 
To our knowledge, none of the smaller turbines use emission control 
technology to reduce HAP. Therefore, we believe it would be 
inappropriate to require HAP emission controls to be applied to them 
without further information on control technology performance.
    Stationary combustion turbines can be classified as either 
diffusion flame or lean premix. We examined formaldehyde test data for 
both diffusion flame and lean premix stationary combustion turbines and 
observed that uncontrolled formaldehyde emissions for stationary lean 
premix combustion turbines are significantly lower than those of 
stationary diffusion flame combustion turbines. Due to the difference 
in the two technologies, we decided to establish subcategories for 
diffusion flame and lean premix stationary combustion turbines.

[[Page 10527]]

    We further investigated subcategorizing lean premix turbines based 
on fuel. At the time of proposal, EPA was not aware of the availability 
of distillate oil fired stationary combustion turbines that operated in 
the lean premix mode. We received comments indicating otherwise during 
the public comment period from combustion turbine manufacturers. We 
believe there is a difference in uncontrolled HAP emissions between 
natural gas and distillate oil for stationary lean premix combustion 
turbines. This is based on test data for stationary diffusion flame 
combustion turbines which clearly show there is a difference in the 
composition of uncontrolled HAP emissions between natural gas and 
distillate oil. We believe this also would apply to stationary lean 
premix combustion turbines. For stationary lean premix combustion 
turbines, NOX emissions also vary depending on which fuel is 
burned in the combustion process. Information from combustion turbine 
vendors indicate that NOX emission guarantees for distillate 
oil can be up to five times higher than the NOX emission 
guarantees for natural gas for stationary lean premix combustion 
turbines. Finally, the mass of total emissions may be similar for 
natural gas and distillate oil, but some pollutants such as 
formaldehyde are lower for distillate oil and other pollutants such as 
PAH and metals are higher for oil. For all practical purposes, 
uncontrolled natural gas metal emissions are nonexistent, while they 
are emitted in small quantities when burning distillate oil.
    We expect that the majority of distillate oil burned in stationary 
combustion turbines will be fuel oil number 2. We recognize that 
stationary combustion turbine owners and operators may burn different 
varieties of distillate oil, however we believe that any other 
distillate oil combusted will be of similar quality and composition to 
fuel oil number 2. We do not anticipate that owners and operators will 
burn any other liquid based fuel that is more contaminated with metals 
than fuel oil number 2 and expect that most available liquid fuels that 
may be used in stationary combustion turbines will be similar and 
fairly consistent.
    In recognition of the clear differences we found in the composition 
of HAP emissions depending on the fuel that is used, we have determined 
that it is appropriate to subcategorize further within stationary lean 
premix combustion turbines based on fuel use. In devising appropriate 
subcategories based on fuel use, we needed to consider that many 
combustion turbines are configured both to use natural gas and 
distillate oil. These dual fuel units typically burn natural gas as 
their primary fuel, and only utilize distillate oil as a backup. 
Without some allowance for this limited backup use of distillate oil, 
these turbines might switch subcategories frequently, causing confusion 
for sources and complicating compliance demonstrations. To limit the 
frequency of switching between subcategories which would result from 
limited usage of distillate oil as a backup fuel, we have defined the 
lean premix gas-fired subcategory in a manner which permits turbines 
that fire gas using lean premix technology to remain in the subcategory 
if all turbines at the site in question fire oil no more than a total 
of 1000 hours during the calendar year. We believe this 1000 hour 
allowance will be sufficient to accommodate those situations where 
distillate oil is used only as a backup. The lean premix gas-fired 
turbines subcategory will be defined to include: (a) Each stationary 
combustion turbine which is equipped only to fire gas using lean premix 
technology, (b) each stationary combustion turbine which is equipped 
both to fire gas using lean premix technology and to fire oil, during 
any period when it is firing gas, and (c) each stationary combustion 
turbine which is equipped both to fire gas using lean premix technology 
and to fire oil, and is located at a major source where all stationary 
combustion turbines fire oil no more than an aggregate total of 1000 
hours during the calendar year.
    The lean premix oil-fired turbines subcategory will be defined to 
include: (a) each stationary combustion turbine which is equipped only 
to fire oil using lean premix technology, and (b) each stationary 
combustion turbine which is equipped both to fire oil using lean premix 
technology and to fire gas, and is located at a major source where all 
stationary combustion turbines fire oil more than an aggregate total of 
1000 hours during the calendar year, during any period when it is 
firing oil. We do not know of any actual combustion turbines which 
would be in this subcategory, but this is possible because we have been 
advised that combustion turbines can be configured to burn oil using 
lean premix technology.
    We further investigated subcategorizing diffusion flame turbines 
based on fuel. For diffusion flame turbines, test data show that HAP 
emissions vary depending on which fuel is burned. Formaldehyde 
emissions are in general lower for diffusion flame units firing 
distillate oil versus diffusion flame units firing natural gas. 
Emissions data also show that NOX levels are higher for 
diffusion flame units firing distillate oil than diffusion flame units 
firing natural gas. Finally, other fuel differences between natural gas 
and distillate oil include higher levels of pollutants such as PAH and 
metals in the emissions of stationary diffusion flame combustion 
turbines burning distillate oil. Quantities of these pollutants are 
small for distillate oil; metal emissions from natural gas are at non-
detectable levels. As previously indicated, we expect that most owners 
and operators of stationary combustion turbines will burn distillate 
oil of the form fuel oil number 2. However, we recognize that other 
liquid based fuels may be also be fired, but these fuels will be 
similar to fuel oil number 2, and do not expect owners and operators to 
burn any other fuel that is more contaminated with metals.
    As in the case of the lean premix turbines, we concluded based on 
the clear differences in the composition of HAP emissions depending on 
the fuel that is used that it is appropriate to subcategorize further 
within stationary diffusion flame combustion turbines based on fuel 
use. As in the case of the lean premix turbines, we have included a 
1000 hour per site allowance for limited backup use of distillate oil 
in order to limit the frequency that dual fuel turbines will switch 
subcategories. We believe this 1000 hour allowance will be sufficient 
to accommodate those situations where distillate oil is used only as a 
backup.
    The diffusion flame gas-fired turbines subcategory will be defined 
to include: (a) Each stationary combustion turbine which is equipped 
only to fire gas using diffusion flame technology, (b) each stationary 
combustion turbine which is equipped both to fire gas using diffusion 
flame technology and to fire oil, during any period when it is firing 
gas, and (c) each stationary combustion turbine which is equipped both 
to fire gas using diffusion flame technology and to fire oil, and is 
located at a major source where all stationary combustion turbines fire 
oil no more than an aggregate total of 1000 hours during the calendar 
year.
    The diffusion flame oil-fired turbines subcategory will be defined 
to include: (a) each stationary combustion turbine which is equipped 
only to fire oil using diffusion flame technology, and (b) each 
stationary combustion turbine which is equipped both to fire oil using 
diffusion flame technology and to fire gas, and is located at a major 
source where all stationary combustion turbines fire oil more than an 
aggregate total of 1000 hours during the calendar year, during

[[Page 10528]]

any period when it is firing oil. We expect that the vast majority of 
all stationary combustion turbines which are primarily oil-fired will 
be included in this subcategory.
    Stationary combustion turbines located on the North Slope of Alaska 
have been identified as a subcategory due to operation limitations and 
uncertainties regarding the application of controls to these units. 
There are very few of these units, and none have installed emission 
controls for the reduction of HAP.

B. What Are the Requirements for Stationary Combustion Turbines Located 
at Area Sources?

    The final rule does not apply to stationary combustion turbines 
located at an area source of HAP emissions. An area source is any 
source that is not a major source of HAP emissions. In developing our 
Urban Air Toxics Strategy, we identified area sources we believe 
warrant regulation to protect the environment and the public health and 
satisfy the statutory requirements in section 112 of the CAA pertaining 
to area sources. Stationary combustion turbines located at area sources 
were not included on that list. As a result, the final rule does not 
apply to these stationary combustion turbines.

C. What Is the Affected Source?

    The final rule applies to any stationary combustion turbine located 
at a major source. Consequently, a stationary combustion turbine 
located at major sources of HAP emissions is the affected source under 
the final rule.
    The General Provisions at 40 CFR 63.2 require us to generally adopt 
a broad definition of affected source, which includes all emission 
units within each subcategory that are located within the same 
contiguous area. However, Sec.  63.2 also provides that we may adopt a 
narrower definition of affected source in instances where we determine 
that the broader definition would ``create significant administrative, 
practical, or implementation problems'' and ``the different definition 
would resolve those problems.'' This is such an instance.
    Although we have taken some steps in the definition of 
subcategories to limit the frequency of switching between 
subcategories, we cannot eliminate the possibility that some individual 
turbines will be switched from one subcategory to another. Use of the 
broader definition of affected source specified by the General 
Provisions would require very complex aggregate compliance 
determinations because an individual turbine could be part of one 
affected source at one time and part of a different affected source at 
another time. This would require that the contribution of each turbine 
to total emissions for all emission units within each subcategory be 
adjusted to reflect the proportionate time the unit was operating 
within that subcategory. Such complicated compliance determinations are 
impractical and, therefore, we have decided to adopt a definition which 
establishes each individual combustion turbine as the affected source.

D. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Emission Limitations 
for Existing Sources?

    As established in section 112 of the CAA, the MACT standards must 
be no less stringent than the MACT floor. The MACT floor for existing 
sources is the average emission limitation achieved by the best 
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the subcategory (or the 
best performing five existing sources in subcategories with fewer than 
30 sources).
    From the applicable judicial precedent, we can derive certain basic 
principles which we must follow in deriving the MACT floor. All HAP 
emitted by sources in the category or subcategory in question must be 
considered in determining the MACT floor. If a particular HAP is an 
appropriate surrogate for evaluating emission reductions which have 
been achieved for a group of HAP, the MACT floor may be expressed in 
terms of that HAP. However, we must explain our basis for concluding 
there is a relationship between control of emissions of the HAP we 
utilize to characterize the MACT floor and control of other HAP. If we 
determine that the MACT floor requires differing controls affecting 
more than one group of HAP, multiple measures of the MACT floor may be 
necessary.
    In addition, when deriving the MACT floor for a particular category 
or subcategory, we must consider all measures which could result in 
reduction of HAP emissions. These measures will include potential 
installation of add-on control technology, but other operational 
modifications such as adjustment of equipment, revision of work 
practices, and material substitution should also be considered. Where 
emissions are relatively homogeneous across the sources in a category 
or subcategory, and any variation in HAP emissions which does occur 
cannot be readily attributed to differences in any factor which is 
susceptible to control by the owner or operator, the MACT floor for a 
particular HAP or group of HAP may be expressed in terms of reductions 
achieved by use of potential add-on controls.
Existing Lean Premix Combustion Turbines
    As explained above, we have established two subcategories of 
stationary lean premix combustion turbines, lean premix gas-fired 
turbines and lean premix oil-fired turbines. Emissions of each HAP are 
relatively homogeneous within each of these two subcategories, and any 
variation in HAP emissions cannot be readily controlled except by add-
on control. To determine the MACT floor for both subcategories of 
existing stationary lean premix combustion turbines, the EPA's 
combustion turbine inventory database was consulted.
    The inventory database provides population information on 
stationary combustion turbines in the United States (U.S.) and was 
constructed in order to support the development of the rule. Data in 
the inventory database are based on information from available 
databases, such as the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS), 
the Ozone Transport and Assessment Group (OTAG), and State and local 
agencies' databases. The first version of the database was released in 
1997. Subsequent versions have been released reflecting additional or 
updated data. The most recent release of the database is version 4, 
released in November 1998.
    The inventory database contains information on approximately 4,800 
stationary combustion turbines. The current stationary combustion 
turbine population is estimated to be about 8,000 turbines. Therefore, 
the inventory database represents about 60 percent of the stationary 
combustion turbines in the U.S. At least 20 percent of those turbines 
are estimated to be lean premix combustion turbines, based on 
conversations with turbine manufacturers.
    The information contained in the inventory database is believed to 
be representative of stationary combustion turbines primarily because 
of its comprehensiveness. The database includes both small and large 
stationary combustion turbines in different user segments. Forty-eight 
percent are ``industrial,'' 39 percent are ``utility,'' and 13 percent 
are ``pipeline.'' Note that independent power producers (IPP) are 
included in the utility and industrial segments.
    We examined all of the information available to us including the 
inventory database to identify any operational modifications such as 
equipment adjustments or work practice revisions which might be 
associated with lower

[[Page 10529]]

HAP emissions. We were unsuccessful in identifying any such operational 
modifications. Therefore, we were unable to utilize any factors other 
than add-on controls in deriving the MACT floor.
    Another approach we investigated to identify a MACT floor was to 
review the requirements in existing State regulations and permits. No 
State regulations exist for HAP emission limits for stationary 
combustion turbines. Only one State permit limitation for a single HAP 
(benzene) was identified. Therefore, we were unable to use State 
regulations or permits in deriving a MACT floor.
    The only add-on control technology currently proven to reduce HAP 
emissions from stationary lean premix combustion turbines is an 
oxidation catalyst emission control device. At proposal, the inventory 
database indicated that no existing stationary lean premix combustion 
turbines were controlled with oxidation catalyst systems. During the 
public comment period, we received a test report where a lean premix 
combustion turbine burning natural gas was tested twice about 2 years 
apart with an oxidation catalyst in operation.
    We estimate that about 1 percent of existing lean premix gas-fired 
turbines may have oxidation catalyst systems installed. Accordingly, 
the average of the best performing 12 percent is no emission reduction. 
Therefore, the MACT floor for existing lean premix gas-fired turbines 
for each individual HAP is no emission reduction.
    For lean premix oil-fired turbines, we do not have any data 
indicating that turbines in this subcategory are in actual use, nor do 
we have data indicating that oxidation catalysts have been installed. 
Accordingly, the average emission limitation achieved by the best 
performing existing units in this subcategory for each individual HAP 
would also be no emission reduction.
    To determine MACT for both subcategories of existing stationary 
lean premix combustion turbines, we evaluated regulatory alternatives 
more stringent than the MACT floor. We considered requiring the use of 
an oxidation catalyst emission control device. According to catalyst 
vendors, oxidation catalysts are currently being used on some existing 
lean premix stationary combustion turbines. In addition, we recently 
received a test report where testing was conducted on a lean premix 
unit with an oxidation catalyst. However, an analysis of the 
application of oxidation catalyst control to existing lean premix 
stationary combustion turbines showed that the incremental cost per ton 
of HAP removed was excessive. We have not identified any operational 
modifications which are not currently in use for these turbines but 
might result in HAP reductions. Nor have we identified any technologies 
to control those metallic HAP which may be emitted during burning of 
distillate oil which are technologically feasible and cost-effective. 
For these reasons, we concluded that MACT for each individual HAP for 
existing sources in both subcategories of existing stationary lean 
premix combustion turbines is the same as the MACT floor, i.e., no 
emission reduction.
Existing Diffusion Flame Combustion Turbines
    As explained above, we have established two subcategories of 
stationary diffusion flame combustion turbines, diffusion flame gas-
fired turbines and diffusion flame oil-fired turbines. We believe 
emissions of each HAP are relatively homogeneous within each of these 
two subcategories and any variation in HAP emissions cannot be readily 
controlled except by add-on control. To determine the MACT floor for 
both subcategories of existing stationary diffusion flame combustion 
turbines, we consulted the inventory database previously discussed in 
this preamble. At least 80 percent of those turbines are assumed to be 
diffusion flame combustion turbines, based on conversations with 
turbine manufacturers.
    We investigated the use of operational modifications such as 
equipment adjustments and work practice revisions for stationary 
diffusion flame combustion turbines to determine if HAP reductions 
associated with such operational modifications might be relevant in 
deriving the MACT floor. We found no relevant references in the 
inventory database.
    Most stationary diffusion flame combustion turbines will not 
operate unless preset conditions established by the manufacturer are 
met. Stationary diffusion flame combustion turbines, by manufacturer 
design, permit little operator involvement and there are no operating 
parameters, such as air/fuel ratio, for the operator to adjust. We 
concluded, therefore, that there are no specific operational 
modifications which could reduce HAP emissions or which could serve to 
identify a MACT floor.
    Another approach we investigated to identify a MACT floor was to 
review the requirements in existing State regulations and permits. No 
State regulations exist for HAP emission limits for stationary 
combustion turbines. Only one State permit limitation for a single HAP 
(benzene) was identified. Therefore, we were unable to use State 
regulations or permits in deriving a MACT floor.
    We examined the inventory database for information on HAP emission 
control technology. There were no turbines controlled with oxidation 
catalyst systems in the inventory database so we used information 
supplied by catalyst vendors. There are about 200 oxidation catalyst 
systems installed in the U.S. The only control technology currently 
proven to reduce HAP emissions from stationary diffusion flame 
combustion turbines is an oxidation catalyst emission control device, 
such as a CO oxidation catalyst. These control devices are used to 
reduce CO emissions and are currently installed on several stationary 
combustion turbines.
    Less than 3 percent of existing stationary diffusion flame gas-
fired turbines in the U.S., based on information in our inventory 
database and information from catalyst vendors, are equipped with 
oxidation catalyst emission control devices. Therefore, the average 
emission limitation for the best performing 12 percent of existing 
diffusion flame gas-fired turbines is no emission reduction and the 
MACT floor for each individual HAP for existing turbines in this 
subcategory is also no emission reduction.
    We estimate that less than 1 percent of existing stationary 
diffusion flame oil-fired turbines have oxidation catalyst systems 
installed. Thus, the average of the best performing 12 percent of 
existing diffusion flame oil-fired turbines is no emission reduction 
for organic HAP. No technologies to control metallic HAP have been 
installed on the existing turbines in this subcategory. Therefore, the 
MACT floor for each individual HAP for existing turbines in the 
diffusion flame oil-fired subcategory is no emission reduction.
    To determine MACT for both subcategories of existing diffusion 
flame combustion turbines, regulatory alternatives more stringent than 
the MACT floor were evaluated. One beyond-the-floor regulatory option 
is requiring an oxidation catalyst. However, cost per ton estimates of 
oxidation catalyst emission control devices for control of total HAP 
from stationary diffusion flame combustion turbines were deemed 
excessive. In addition, we did not identify any operational 
modifications which are not currently in use for these turbines but 
might result in HAP reductions. Moreover, we did not identify any

[[Page 10530]]

technologies to control those metallic HAP which may be emitted during 
burning of distillate oil which are technologically feasible and cost-
effective. For these reasons, MACT for each individual HAP for turbines 
in both subcategories of existing stationary diffusion flame combustion 
turbines is the same as the MACT floor, i.e., no emission reduction.

E. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Emission Limitations 
and Operating Limitations for New Sources?

    For new sources, the MACT floor is defined as the emission control 
that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. To 
be a similar source, a source should not have any characteristics that 
differ sufficiently to have a material effect on the feasibility of 
emission controls, but the source need not be in the same source 
category or subcategory.
    We considered using a surrogate in order to reduce the costs 
associated with monitoring while at the same time being relatively sure 
that the pollutants the surrogate is supposed to represent are also 
controlled. We investigated the use of formaldehyde concentration as a 
surrogate for all organic HAP emissions. Formaldehyde is the HAP 
emitted in the highest concentrations from stationary combustion 
turbines. Formaldehyde, toluene, benzene, and acetaldehyde account for 
essentially all the mass of HAP emissions from the stationary 
combustion turbine exhaust, and emissions data show that these 
pollutants are equally controlled by an oxidation catalyst.
    Information from testing conducted on a diffusion flame combustion 
turbine equipped with an oxidation catalyst control system indicated 
that the formaldehyde and acetaldehyde emission reduction efficiency 
achieved was 97 and 94 percent, respectively. Later, after review of an 
expert task group, the conclusion reached was that both formaldehyde 
and acetaldehyde were controlled at least 90 percent. In addition, 
emissions tests conducted on reciprocating internal combustion engines 
(RICE) at Colorado State University (CSU) in 1998 showed that the 
benzene emission reduction efficiency across an oxidation catalyst 
averaged 73 percent, and the toluene emission reduction averaged 77 
percent for 16 runs at various engine conditions on a two-stroke lean 
burn engine. The toluene emission reduction efficiency across the 
oxidation catalyst averaged 85 percent for ten runs at various engine 
conditions on a compression ignition RICE. We would expect the 
emissions reductions efficiencies for benzene and toluene from 
combustion turbines to be as high or higher than those reported for the 
CSU RICE tests since combustion turbines catalyst temperatures are 
generally higher. Finally, catalyst performance information obtained 
from a catalyst vendor indicated that the percent conversion for an 
oxidation catalyst system installed on combustion turbines did not vary 
significantly between formaldehyde, benzene, and toluene. The percent 
conversion was measured at 77, 72, and 71 for formaldehyde, benzene, 
and toluene, respectively. Although emissions reductions for large 
molecules may in theory be less than for formaldehyde, the above 
information shows that formaldehyde is a good surrogate for the most 
significant HAP pollutants emitted from combustion turbines as 
demonstrated by evaluating the reduction efficiency of larger, heavier 
molecules, hence taking differences in molecular density into account. 
In addition, emission data show that HAP emission levels and 
formaldehyde emission levels are related, in the sense that when 
emissions of one are low, emissions of the other are low and vice 
versa. This leads us to conclude that emission control technologies 
which lead to reductions in formaldehyde emissions will lead to 
reductions in organic HAP emissions. For the reasons provided above, it 
is appropriate to use formaldehyde as a surrogate for all organic HAP 
emissions.
New Lean Premix Gas-Fired Turbines
    To determine the MACT floor for new stationary lean premix gas-
fired turbines, we reviewed the emissions data we had available at 
proposal and additional test reports received during the comment 
period. In order to set the MACT floor for new sources in this 
subcategory, we chose the best performing turbine. Emissions of each 
HAP are relatively homogeneous within the subcategory of stationary 
lean premix gas-fired turbines and any variation in HAP emissions 
cannot be readily controlled except by add-on control. The best 
performing turbine is equipped with an oxidation catalyst.
    The formaldehyde concentration from the best performing turbine was 
measured at the outlet of the control device using CARB 430. Concerns 
were raised during the public comment period that CARB 430 formaldehyde 
results can be biased low as compared to formaldehyde results obtained 
by FTIR. For a comprehensive discussion of test methods and the 
development of the correlation between CARB 430 and FTIR formaldehyde 
levels, please refer to the memorandum entitled ``Review of Test 
Methods and Data used to Quantify Formaldehyde Concentrations from 
Combustion Turbines'' in the docket. A bias factor of 1.7 was, 
therefore, applied to the formaldehyde concentration of the best 
performing turbine. The best performing turbine was tested twice under 
the same conditions about 2 years apart where one test measured 19 
ppbvd and the other test measured 91 ppbvd formaldehyde (numbers have 
been bias corrected). We determined that since both of these tests were 
performed under similar conditions but at different times, this 
represented the variability of the best performing unit and used the 
higher value as the MACT floor. The MACT floor for organic HAP for new 
stationary lean premix gas-fired turbines is, therefore, an emission 
limit of 91 ppbvd formaldehyde at 15 percent oxygen.
    We recognize that our selection of an emission limit of 91 ppbvd 
formaldehyde is based on quite limited data. We think that each new 
combustion turbine in this subcategory should be able to achieve 
compliance with this limit if an oxidation catalyst is properly 
installed and operated. If 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.
    No beyond-the-floor regulatory alternatives were identified for new 
lean premix gas-fired turbines. We are not aware of any add-on control 
devices which can reduce organic HAP emissions to levels lower than 
those resulting from the application of oxidation catalyst systems. We, 
therefore, determined that MACT for organic HAP emissions from new 
stationary lean premix gas-fired turbines is the same as the MACT 
floor, i.e., an emission limit of 91 ppbvd formaldehyde at 15 percent 
oxygen.
New Lean Premix Oil-Fired Turbines
    We do not have any tests for lean premix combustion turbines firing 
any other fuels besides natural gas. However, we expect that emissions 
of organic HAP will be controlled by installation of an oxidation 
catalyst on any units in this subcategory to a degree similar to lean 
premix gas-fired turbines and diffusion flame oil-fired turbines. We 
also expect that organic HAP emissions from lean premix oil-fired 
turbines would be equal to or less than organic HAP emissions from lean 
premix gas-fired turbines. We have these expectations based on the fact 
that dual-fuel units using oxidation catalyst systems operate on 
distillate oil and the

[[Page 10531]]

fact that catalyst vendors indicate that oxidation catalyst systems 
operate equally well on either fuel. Therefore, we used the best 
performing turbine from the lean premix gas-fired turbine subcategory 
to set the MACT floor for lean premix oil-fired turbines. As a result, 
the MACT floor for organic HAP for new stationary lean premix oil-fired 
turbines is an emission limit of 91 ppbvd formaldehyde at 15 percent 
oxygen.
    We are not aware of any similar sources which are equipped with 
emission control devices that could also reduce emissions of metallic 
HAP. We also examined the inventory database in an attempt to identify 
any operating modifications which might reduce metal emissions, but 
could not identify any such practices. We also referred to the 
inventory database to determine if any similar sources are equipped 
with emission controls for the reduction of particulate matter (PM) 
which would also reduce metal emissions. No such units were found in 
the inventory database and none were identified by commenters during 
the public comment period. For this reason, the MACT floor for new 
stationary lean premix oil-fired turbines is no emission control for 
metallic HAP emissions.
    We were unable to identify any beyond-the-floor regulatory 
alternatives for new stationary lean premix oil-fired turbines. We know 
of no emission control technology currently available which can reduce 
HAP emissions to levels lower than those achieved through use of an 
oxidation catalyst. We also have not identified any add-on controls for 
metallic HAP. We conclude, therefore, that MACT for new lean premix 
oil-fired turbines would be equivalent to the MACT floor, i.e., an 
emission limit of 91 ppbvd formaldehyde at 15 percent oxygen organic 
HAP, and no emission reduction for metallic HAP.
New Diffusion Flame Gas-Fired Turbines
    In the proposed rule, we requested sources to submit any HAP 
emissions test data available from stationary combustion turbines. 
After the proposal, we also contacted several State agencies to request 
emissions test data from diffusion flame combustion turbines. Due to 
the CARB advisory issued on April 28, 2000, which stated that 
formaldehyde emissions data where the NOX levels were 
greater than 50 ppmvd were suspect and should be flagged as non-
quantitative, we conducted an analysis of existing diffusion flame 
emissions test data. Tests where the NOX emissions were 
greater than 50 ppm or tests where the NOX levels were 
unknown were excluded from our analysis. Most of the diffusion flame 
tests in the emissions database were unable to pass the screening. 
Therefore, we specifically requested States to provide test reports for 
diffusion flame combustion turbines where Method 320 was used, or CARB 
430 was used and the NOX emissions were below 50 ppmvd. 
During the comment period we received three additional test reports for 
testing conducted on a total of five stationary diffusion flame 
combustion turbines.
    To identify the MACT floor for new stationary diffusion flame gas-
fired turbines, we based our analysis on the performance of the best 
turbine. Individual HAP emissions are relatively homogeneous within the 
subcategory of stationary diffusion flame gas-fired turbines and any 
variation in HAP emissions cannot be readily controlled except by add-
on control. The best performing turbine in this subcategory is equipped 
with an oxidation catalyst.
    As previously indicated, formaldehyde is the HAP emitted in the 
highest concentrations from stationary combustion turbines and data 
show control of organic HAP emissions and formaldehyde emissions are 
related. We have, therefore, concluded that formaldehyde is an 
appropriate surrogate for all organic HAP emissions.
    Formaldehyde was measured by CARB 430 at the outlet of the 
oxidation catalyst. We applied a bias factor of 1.7 to the formaldehyde 
concentration obtained by CARB 430 for the best performing turbine. The 
corrected outlet concentration of formaldehyde from the best performing 
turbine was 15 ppbvd. We only have one controlled test for this 
turbine, but we expect that similar variability would be associated 
with this turbine as was associated with the best performing lean 
premix turbine. Therefore, applying a factor of 5 to the formaldehyde 
concentration measured at the outlet of the best performing diffusion 
flame turbine is appropriate to account for variability. Therefore, we 
would establish a formaldehyde emission limitation of 75 ppbvd based on 
the outlet of the control device. However, with a similar control 
system, we would expect that the emission limit should be no lower than 
the emission limit for lean premix turbines since diffusion flame 
turbines on average emit more HAP. The MACT floor for new stationary 
diffusion flame combustion gas-fired turbines is, therefore, an 
emission limit of 91 ppbvd formaldehyde at 15 percent oxygen.
    We were unable to identify any beyond-the-floor regulatory 
alternatives for new stationary diffusion flame gas-fired turbines. We 
know of no emission control technology currently available which can 
reduce organic HAP emissions to levels lower than that achieved through 
the use of an oxidation catalyst. We concluded, therefore, that MACT 
for organic HAP emissions from new diffusion flame stationary gas-fired 
turbines is equivalent to the MACT floor, i.e., an emission limit of 91 
ppbvd formaldehyde at 15 percent oxygen.
New Diffusion Flame Oil-Fired Turbines
    To determine the MACT floor for new diffusion flame oil-fired 
turbines, we again based our analysis on the best performing turbine. 
Emissions of each individual HAP are relatively homogeneous within 
stationary diffusion flame oil-fired turbines and any variation in HAP 
emissions cannot be readily controlled except by add-on control. The 
best performing turbine in this subcategory is equipped with an 
oxidation catalyst.
    As previously described in more detail, we are using formaldehyde 
as a surrogate for all organic HAP emissions. The formaldehyde was 
measured with EPA Method 0011 at the outlet of the control device. The 
EPA Method 0011 is similar to CARB 430 and the problems associated with 
CARB 430 are expected to be associated with EPA Method 0011. So again 
we applied a bias factor of 1.7 to the formaldehyde outlet 
concentration of the best performing diffusion flame oil-fired turbine. 
The corrected formaldehyde concentration from this turbine is 44 ppbvd. 
We only had one controlled test for this turbine, but would expect some 
variability as has been shown with other turbines. However, since 
formaldehyde emissions from distillate oil fired turbines are lower on 
average by a factor of 1.4, we do not believe that the MACT emission 
limit should be set higher than the emission limit for new stationary 
diffusion flame gas-fired turbines. Therefore, the MACT floor for 
organic HAP for new stationary diffusion flame oil-fired turbines is an 
emission limit of 91 ppbvd formaldehyde at 15 percent oxygen.
    We examined the inventory database to identify any operating 
practices which could affect metal emissions. We were unable to 
identify any such practices. We also determined that no similar sources 
are equipped with emission control devices for the reduction of PM 
which could also reduce metal emissions. Therefore, the MACT floor for 
metallic HAP for new diffusion flame oil-fired turbines is no emission 
reduction.

[[Page 10532]]

    To determine MACT for new stationary diffusion oil-fired turbines, 
we tried to identify beyond-the-floor options. There are currently no 
beyond-the-floor regulatory alternatives for this subcategory as we 
know of no emission control technology current available that can 
reduce organic HAP emissions to levels lower than that obtained with 
the use of an oxidation catalyst. We also have not identified any add-
on controls for metallic HAP. We conclude, therefore, that MACT for new 
diffusion flame oil-fired turbines would be equivalent to the MACT 
floor, i.e., an emission limit of 91 ppbvd formaldehyde at 15 percent 
oxygen organic HAP, and no emission reduction for metallic HAP.
Other Subcategories
    Although the final rule will apply to all stationary combustion 
turbines located at major sources of HAP emissions, emergency 
stationary combustion turbines, 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 MSW is used to 
generate 10 percent or more of the gross heat input to the stationary 
combustion turbine on an annual basis, stationary combustion turbines 
of less than 1 MW rated peak power output, and stationary combustion 
turbines located on the North Slope of Alaska are not required to meet 
the emission limitations or operating limitations.
    For each of the other subcategories of stationary combustion 
turbines, we have concerns about the applicability of emission control 
technology. For example, emergency stationary combustion turbines 
operate infrequently. In addition, when called upon to operate they 
must respond immediately without failure and without lengthy startup 
periods. This infrequent operation limits the applicability of HAP 
emission control technology.
    Landfill and digester gases contain a family of silicon based gases 
called siloxanes. Siloxanes are also a component of municipal waste. 
Combustion of siloxanes forms compounds that can foul post-combustion 
catalysts, rendering catalysts inoperable within a very short period of 
time. It is our judgment based on public comments that firing even 10 
percent landfill or digester gas will cause fouling that will render 
the oxidation catalyst inoperable within a short period of time. 
Pretreatment of exhaust gases to remove siloxanes was investigated. 
However, no pretreatment systems are in use and their long term 
effectiveness is unknown. We also considered fuel switching for this 
subcategory of turbines. Switching to a different fuel such as natural 
gas or diesel would potentially allow the turbine to apply an oxidation 
catalyst emission control device. However, fuel switching would defeat 
the purpose of using this type of fuel which would then either be 
allowed to escape uncontrolled or would be burned in a flare with no 
energy recovery. We believe that switching landfill or digester gas or 
gasified MSW to another fuel is inappropriate and is an environmentally 
inferior option.
    For stationary combustion turbines of less than 1 MW rated peak 
power output, we have concerns about the effectiveness of scaling down 
the oxidation catalyst emission control technology. Just as there are 
often unforeseen problems associated with scaling up a technology, 
there can be problems associated with scaling down a technology.
    Stationary combustion turbines located on the North Slope of Alaska 
have been identified as a subcategory due to operation limitations and 
uncertainties regarding the application of controls to these units. 
There are very few of these units; in addition, none have installed 
emission controls for the reduction of HAP.
    As a result, we identified subcategories for each of these types of 
stationary combustion turbines and investigated MACT floors and MACT 
for each subcategory. As expected, since we identified these types of 
stationary combustion turbines as separate subcategories based on 
concerns about the applicability of emission control technology, we 
found no stationary combustion turbines in these subcategories using 
any emission control technology to reduce HAP emissions. As discussed 
above, we are not aware of any work practices that might constitute a 
MACT floor, nor did we find that the use of a particular fuel results 
in HAP emission reductions. The MACT floor, therefore, for each of 
these subcategories is no emission reduction.
    Despite our concerns with the applicability of emission control 
technology, we examined the cost per ton of HAP removed for these 
subcategories. This analysis can be found in the docket (Docket ID No. 
OAR-2002-0060 (A-95-51)) for the final rule. Whether our concerns are 
warranted or not, we consider the incremental cost per ton of HAP 
removed excessive--primarily because of the very small reduction in HAP 
emissions that would result.
    We also considered the non-air health, environmental, and energy 
impacts of an oxidation catalyst system, as discussed previously in 
this preamble, and concluded that there would be only a small energy 
impact and no non-air health or environmental impacts. However, as 
stated above, we did not adopt this regulatory option due to cost 
considerations and concerns about the applicability of this technology 
to these subcategories. We were not able to identify any other means of 
achieving HAP emission reduction for these subcategories.
    As a result, for all of these reasons, we conclude that MACT for 
these subcategories is the MACT floor (i.e., no emission reduction).

F. How Did We Select the Initial Compliance Requirements?

    New and reconstructed sources complying with the emission 
limitation for formaldehyde emissions are required to conduct an 
initial performance test. The purpose of the initial test is to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the formaldehyde emission 
limitation.

G. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

    If you must comply with the emission limitations, continuous 
compliance with these requirements is required at all times except 
during startup, shutdown, and malfunction of your stationary combustion 
turbine. You are required to develop a startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan.
    We considered requiring FTIR CEMS; however, we concluded that the 
costs of FTIR CEMS were excessive and were not yet demonstrated at the 
low formaldehyde levels of the standards. We considered requiring those 
sources to continuously monitor operating load to demonstrate 
continuous compliance because the data establishing the formaldehyde 
outlet concentration level are based on tests that were done at high 
loads. However, we believe that the performance of a stationary 
combustion turbine at high load is also indicative of its operation at 
lower loads. In fact, the operator can make no parameter adjustments 
that would lead to lower emissions.
    For these reasons, EPA determined that it would be appropriate to 
require sources that comply with the emission limitation for 
formaldehyde emissions and that use an oxidation catalyst emission 
control device to continuously monitor the oxidation catalyst inlet 
temperature. Continuously monitoring the oxidation catalyst inlet 
temperature and maintaining this temperature within the range 
recommended by the

[[Page 10533]]

catalyst manufacturer will ensure proper operation of the oxidation 
catalyst emission control device and continuous compliance with the 
emission limitation for formaldehyde.
    Sources that do not use an oxidation catalyst emission control 
device are required to petition the Administrator for approval of 
operating limitations or approval of no operating limitations.

H. How Did We Select the Testing Methods To Measure These Low 
Concentrations of Formaldehyde?

    The final rule requires the use of Method 320 or ASTM D6348-03 to 
determine compliance with the emission limitation for formaldehyde. 
With regard to formaldehyde, we believe systems meeting the 
requirements of Method 320, a self-validating FTIR method, can be used 
to attain detection limits for formaldehyde concentrations well below 
the current emission limitations with a path length of 10 meters or 
less. Some of the older technology may require 100 or even 200 meter 
path lengths. We expect state-of-the-art digital signal processing (to 
reduce signal to noise ratio) would be needed. Method 320 also includes 
formaldehyde spike recovery criteria, which require spike recoveries of 
70 to 130 percent.
    While we believe FTIR systems can meet the requirements of Method 
320 and measure formaldehyde concentrations at these low levels, we 
have limited experience with their use. As a result, we solicited 
comments on the ability and use of FTIR systems to meet the validation 
and quality assurance requirements of Method 320 for the purpose of 
determining compliance with the emission limitation for formaldehyde. 
Commenters were generally in agreement that Method 320 is the most 
accurate and reliable test method currently available to test for 
formaldehyde emissions from the stationary combustion turbine exhaust.
    We are also allowing the use of ASTM D6348-03 in the final rule to 
determine compliance with the emission limitation for formaldehyde. As 
mentioned in the preamble to the proposed rule, the method was reviewed 
by the EPA as a potential alternative to Method 320. Suggested 
revisions to ASTM D6348-98 were sent to ASTM by the EPA that would 
allow the EPA to accept ASTM D6348-98 as an acceptable alternative. The 
ASTM has revised the method following EPA's suggested revisions. The 
EPA has determined that the revised method, ASTM D6348-03, ``Standard 
Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct 
Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' is an 
acceptable alternative to Method 320 for formaldehyde measurement.
    As an alternative to Method 320, we proposed Method 323 for natural 
gas-fired sources. Method 323 uses the acetyl acetone colorimetric 
method to measure formaldehyde emissions in the exhaust of natural gas-
fired, stationary combustion sources. Commenters did not support Method 
323 and were concerned whether this method could provide reliable 
results. In addition, Method 323 has not been validated or demonstrated 
for use on stationary combustion turbines emitting low formaldehyde 
emissions. Therefore, Method 323 has not been included as a compliance 
method for formaldehyde in the final rule.
    At proposal we believed CARB Method 430 and EPA SW-846 Method 0011 
were capable of measuring formaldehyde concentrations at these low 
levels. Commenters were not supportive of these methods. In addition, 
CARB 430 is susceptible to interferences and sample loss contributes to 
large measurement variability. Method 0011 uses a similar analytical 
approach to CARB 430 and has many shortcomings and limited application 
opportunities. Accordingly, we are not including CARB 430 and Method 
0011 in the final rule.
    For these reasons, EPA has specified that Method 320 or ASTM D6348-
03 should be used to determine compliance with the formaldehyde 
emission limitation in the final rule.

I. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting 
Requirements?

    The notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are 
based on the NESHAP General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63.

V. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts

    We estimate that 20 percent of the stationary combustion turbines 
affected by the final rule will be located at major sources. As a 
result, the environmental, energy, and economic impacts presented in 
this preamble reflect these estimates.
    The outcome of the petition to delist certain subcategories which 
has been submitted to EPA could significantly affect the estimated 
impacts of the final rule. If approved, the delisting could 
significantly decrease the number of sources affected by the final rule 
and could affect the final emission estimates. Thus, the estimated 
impacts could change.

A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

    The final rule will reduce total national HAP emissions by an 
estimated 98 tpy in the 5th year after the standards are promulgated. 
The emission reduction achieved by the final rule would be due to the 
sources that install an oxidation catalyst control system. We estimate 
that all new stationary combustion turbines will install oxidation 
catalyst control to comply with the standards.
    To estimate air impacts, national HAP emissions in the absence of 
the final rule (i.e., HAP emission baseline) were calculated. We then 
assumed a HAP reduction of 90 percent, achieved by using oxidation 
catalyst emission control devices to comply with the formaldehyde 
emission limitation, and applied this reduction to the baseline HAP 
emissions to estimate total national HAP emission reduction. The total 
national HAP emission reduction is the sum of formaldehyde, 
acetaldehyde, benzene, and toluene emissions reductions. In addition to 
HAP emission reduction, the final rule will reduce criteria air 
pollutant emissions, primarily CO emissions.

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    The national total annualized cost of the final rule in the 5th 
year following promulgation is estimated to be about $43 million. 
Approximately $147,400 of that amount is the estimated annualized cost 
for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. To calculate the 
annualized control costs, we obtained estimates of the capital costs of 
oxidation catalyst emission control devices from vendors. We then 
calculated the national total annualized costs of control for the new 
stationary combustion turbines installing oxidation catalyst emission 
control in the next 5 years. Our projection of new stationary 
combustion turbine capacity that will come online during the next 5 
years is based on estimates from the Department of Energy indicating 
that 218 new stationary combustion turbines will begin operation 
between 2002 and 2007.

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    The EPA prepared an economic impact analysis to evaluate the 
impacts the final rule would have on combustion turbines producers, 
consumers of goods and services produced by combustion turbines, and 
society. The analysis shows minimal changes in prices and output for 
products made by the 24 industries affected by the final rule. The 
price increase for affected output is less than 0.02 percent and the 
reduction in output

[[Page 10534]]

is less than 0.02 percent for each affected industry. Estimates of 
impacts on fuel markets show price increases of less than 0.06 percent 
for petroleum products and natural gas, and price increases of 0.53 and 
0.72 percent for base-load and peak-load electricity, respectively. The 
price of coal is expected to decline by about 0.24 percent, and this is 
due to a small reduction in demand for this fuel type. Reductions in 
output are expected to be less than 0.67 percent for each energy type, 
including base-load and peak-load electricity. The social costs of the 
final rule are estimated at $7.8 million (1998 dollars). Social costs 
include the compliance costs, but also include those costs that reflect 
changes in the national economy due to changes in consumer and producer 
behavior in response to the compliance costs associated with a 
regulation. In this case, changes in energy use among both consumers 
and producers to reduce the impact of the regulatory requirements of 
the final rule lead to the estimated social costs being somewhat less 
than the total annualized compliance cost estimate of $43 million 
(1998$). The primary reason for the lower social cost estimate is the 
increase in electricity supply generated by existing unaffected 
sources, which mostly offsets the impact of increased electricity 
prices to consumers.
    For more information on these impacts, please refer to the economic 
impact analysis in the public docket.

D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental and Energy Impacts?

    The only energy requirement is a small increase in fuel consumption 
resulting from back pressure caused by operating an oxidation catalyst 
emission control device. This energy impact is small in comparison to 
the costs of other impacts. There are no known non-air environmental or 
health impacts as a result of the implementation of the final rule.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must 
determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order 
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to 
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, we have determined 
that the final rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' within the 
meaning of the Executive Order. As such, this action was submitted to 
OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or 
recommendations are included in the docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the final rule have been 
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information 
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant 
to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The final rule will require maintenance inspections of the control 
devices but will not require any notifications or reports beyond those 
required by the General Provisions. The recordkeeping requirements 
require only the specific information needed to determine compliance.
    The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of 
the final rule) is estimated to be 2,448 labor hours per year at a 
total annual cost of $333,450. This estimate includes a one-time 
performance test, semiannual excess emission reports, maintenance 
inspections, notifications, and recordkeeping. Total capital/startup 
costs associated with the monitoring requirements over the 3-year 
period of the ICR are estimated at $22,500, with no operation and 
maintenance costs.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is 
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number 
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this 
final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with the final rule. The 
EPA has also determined that the final rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose parent 
company has fewer than 100 or 1,000 employees, or fewer than 4 billion 
kW-hr per year of electricity usage, depending on size definition for 
the affected North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 
code; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a 
city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field. It should be noted that small 
entities in 6 NAICS codes are affected by the final rule, and the small

[[Page 10535]]

business definition applied to each industry by NAICS code is that 
listed in the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards (13 
CFR 121).
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
We have determined, based on the existing combustion turbines 
inventory, that 29 small entities out of 300 in the industries impacted 
by the final rule may be affected. None of these small entities will 
incur control costs associated with the final rule, but will incur 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs and the costs of 
performance testing. These 29 small entities own 51 affected turbines 
in the existing combustion turbines inventory, which represents 2.5 
percent of the existing turbines overall. Of these entities, 22 of 
these entities are small communities and 7 are affected small firms. 
None of the 29 affected small entities are estimated to have compliance 
costs that exceed one-half of 1 percent of their revenues. The median 
compliance costs to affected small entities is 0.07 percent of sales. 
In addition, the final rule is likely to also increase profits at the 
many small firms and increase revenues for the many small communities 
using combustion turbines that are not affected by the final rule as a 
result of the very slight increase in market prices.
    It should be noted that it is likely that the ongoing deregulation 
of the electric power industry across the nation should minimize the 
rule's impacts on small entities. Increased competition in the electric 
power industry is forecasted to decrease the market price for wholesale 
electric power. It is likely that open access to the grid and lower 
market prices for electricity will make it less attractive for local 
communities to purchase and operate new combustion turbines. For more 
information on the results of the analysis of small entity impacts, 
please refer to the economic impact analysis in the docket.
    Although the final rule will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to 
reduce the impact of the final rule on small entities. In the final 
rule, the Agency is applying the minimum level of control and the 
minimum level of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting to affected 
sources allowed by the Clean Air Act. Existing stationary combustion 
turbines have no emission requirements. In addition, as mentioned 
earlier in the preamble, new turbines with capacities under 1.0 MW are 
not subject to the final rule. This provision should reduce the level 
of small entity impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is 
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and 
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the 
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, we must develop a small 
government agency plan under section 203 of the UMRA. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    The EPA has determined that the final rule contains a Federal 
mandate that will not result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any 1 year. The highest cost in any 1 year is less 
than $43 million. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements 
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    Although not required by the UMRA, we have consulted with State and 
local air pollution control officials. We also have held meetings on 
the rule with many of the stakeholders from numerous individual 
companies, environmental groups, consultants and vendors, labor unions, 
and other interested parties. We have added materials to the Air docket 
to document those meetings.
    In addition, we have determined that the final rule contains no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. Therefore, today's rule is not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires us to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that 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.''
    The final rule 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, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The final rule primarily affects 
private industry, and does not impose significant economic costs on 
State or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply 
to the final rule.
    Although not required by Executive Order 13132, we consulted with 
representatives of State and local governments to enable them to 
provide meaningful and timely input into the development of the final 
rule. This consultation took place during the ICCR committee meetings 
where members representing State and local governments participated in 
developing recommendations for EPA's combustion-related rules, 
including the final rule. The concerns raised by representatives of 
State and local governments were considered during the development of 
the final rule.

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

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of

[[Page 10536]]

regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that 
have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    The final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the final rule.

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives.
    We interpret Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. The final rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology 
performance and not on health or safety risks.

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

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 Fed. 
Reg. 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy. The basis for this determination is provided below.
    The increase in petroleum product output, which includes increases 
in fuel production, is estimated at 0.013 percent, or about 2,003 
barrels per day based on 2000 U.S. fuel production nationwide. The 
reduction in coal production is estimated at 0.00007 percent, or about 
7,936 short tons per year based on 2000 U.S. coal production 
nationwide. The reduction in electricity output is estimated at 0.083 
percent, or about 20.4 billion kilowatt-hours per year based on 2000 
U.S. electricity production nationwide. Production of natural gas is 
expected to increase by 11.7 million cubic feet (ft3) per 
day. The maximum of all energy price increases, which include increases 
in natural gas prices as well as those for petroleum products, coal, 
and electricity, is estimated to be the 0.71 percent increase in peak-
load electricity rates nationwide. Energy distribution costs may 
increase by roughly no more than the same amount as electricity rates. 
We expect that there will be no discernable impact on the import of 
foreign energy supplies, and no other adverse outcomes are expected to 
occur with regards to energy supplies. Also, the increase in cost of 
energy production should be minimal given the very small increase in 
fuel consumption resulting from back pressure related to operation of 
oxidation catalyst emission control devices. All of the estimates 
presented above account for some passthrough of costs to consumers as 
well as the direct cost impact to producers. For more information on 
these estimated energy effects, please refer to the economic impact 
analysis for the final rule. This analysis is available in the public 
docket.
    No new combustion turbines with a capacity of less than 1.0 MW will 
be affected. Also, the control level applied to affected new combustion 
turbines is the minimum that can be applied consistent with the 
provisions of the Clean Air Act.
    Therefore, we conclude that the final rule when implemented will 
not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or 
use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 
104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus 
standards in their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do 
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. 
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) 
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The 
NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with explanations when an agency 
does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The final rule involves technical standards. The EPA cites the 
following standards in the final rule: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 3A, 3B, 4, 
and 320. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify 
voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods. No 
applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA Method 
1A. The search and review results have been documented and are placed 
in the docket (Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0060 (A-95-51)) for the final 
rule.
    The search for emissions measurement procedures identified six 
voluntary consensus standards. The EPA determined that five of these 
six standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or 
surrogates subject to emission standards in the final rule were 
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the 
rule. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for this 
purpose. (See Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0060 (A-95-51) for further 
information on the methods.)
    The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6348-03, ``Standard Test 
Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct 
Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' is an 
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 for formaldehyde measurement 
provided that, in ASTM D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), 
the percent R must be greater than or equal to 70 and less than or 
equal to 130.
    Section 63.6120 and Table 3 to subpart YYYY of the final rule list 
the EPA testing methods included in the regulation. Under Sec. Sec.  
63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source 
may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or 
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any of the EPA testing 
methods, performance specifications, or procedures.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as 
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a

[[Page 10537]]

rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the 
Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA 
will submit a report containing today's final rule and other required 
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and 
the comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of 
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final rule will be effective on 
March 5, 2004.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 29, 2003.
Marianne Lamont Horinko,
Acting Administrator.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 
of the Code of the Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart YYYY to read as follows:

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

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.6080 What is the purpose of subpart YYYY?
63.6085 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.6090 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.6092 Are duct burners and waste heat recovery units covered by 
subpart YYYY?
63.6095 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission and Operating Limitations

63.6100 What emission and operating limitations must I meet?

General Compliance Requirements

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

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

63.6110 By what date must I conduct the initial performance tests or 
other initial compliance demonstrations?
63.6115 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.6120 What performance tests and other procedures must I use?
63.6125 What are my monitor installation, operation, and maintenance 
requirements?
63.6130 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
and operating limitations?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.6135 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous 
compliance?
63.6140 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission 
and operating limitations?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.6145 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.6150 What reports must I submit and when?
63.6155 What records must I keep?
63.6160 In what form and how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.6165 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.6170 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.6175 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart YYYY of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63.--Emission Limitations
Table 2 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63.--Operating Limitations
Table 3 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63.--Requirements for Performance 
Tests and Initial Compliance Demonstrations
Table 4 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63.--Initial Compliance with 
Emission Limitations
Table 5 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance with 
Operating Limitations
Table 6 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63.--Requirements for Reports
Table 7 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63.--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart YYYY

What This Subpart Covers


Sec.  63.6080  What is the purpose of subpart YYYY?

    Subpart YYYY establishes national emission limitations and 
operating limitations for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions from 
stationary combustion turbines located at major sources of HAP 
emissions, and requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous 
compliance with the emission and operating limitations.


Sec.  63.6085  Am I subject to this subpart?

    You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a stationary 
combustion turbine located at a major source of HAP emissions.
    (a) Stationary combustion turbine means all equipment, including 
but not limited to the turbine, the fuel, air, lubrication and exhaust 
gas systems, control systems (except emissions control equipment), and 
any ancillary components and sub-components comprising any simple cycle 
stationary combustion turbine, any regenerative/recuperative cycle 
stationary combustion turbine, the combustion turbine portion of any 
stationary cogeneration cycle combustion system, or the combustion 
turbine portion of any stationary combined cycle steam/electric 
generating system. Stationary means that the combustion turbine is not 
self propelled or intended to be propelled while performing its 
function, although it may be mounted on a vehicle for portability or 
transportability. Stationary combustion turbines covered by this 
subpart include simple cycle stationary combustion turbines, 
regenerative/recuperative cycle stationary combustion turbines, 
cogeneration cycle stationary combustion turbines, and combined cycle 
stationary combustion turbines. Stationary combustion turbines subject 
to this subpart do not include turbines located at a research or 
laboratory facility, if research is conducted on the turbine itself and 
the turbine is not being used to power other applications at the 
research or laboratory facility.
    (b) A major source of HAP emissions is a contiguous site under 
common control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP 
at a rate of 10 tons (9.07 megagrams) or more per year or any 
combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons (22.68 megagrams) or more per 
year, except that for oil and gas production facilities, a major source 
of HAP emissions is determined for each surface site.


Sec.  63.6090  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    This subpart applies to each affected source.
    (a) Affected source. An affected source is any existing, new, or 
reconstructed stationary combustion turbine located at a major source 
of HAP emissions.
    (1) Existing stationary combustion turbine. A stationary combustion 
turbine is existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of 
the stationary combustion turbine on or before January 14, 2003. A 
change in ownership of an existing stationary combustion turbine does 
not make that stationary combustion turbine a new or reconstructed 
stationary combustion turbine.
    (2) New stationary combustion turbine. A stationary combustion 
turbine is new if you commenced construction of the stationary

[[Page 10538]]

combustion turbine after January 14, 2003.
    (3) Reconstructed stationary combustion turbine. A stationary 
combustion turbine is reconstructed if you meet the definition of 
reconstruction in Sec.  63.2 of subpart A of this part and 
reconstruction is commenced after January 14, 2003.
    (b) Subcategories with limited requirements.
    (1) A new or reconstructed stationary combustion turbine located at 
a major source which meets either of the following criteria does not 
have to meet the requirements of this subpart and of subpart A of this 
part except for the initial notification requirements of Sec.  
63.6145(d):
    (i) The stationary combustion turbine is an emergency stationary 
combustion turbine; or
    (ii) The stationary combustion turbine is located on the North 
Slope of Alaska.
    (2) A stationary combustion turbine which burns 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 
municipal solid waste (MSW) is used to generate 10 percent or more of 
the gross heat input on an annual basis does not have to meet the 
requirements of this subpart except for:
    (i) The initial notification requirements of Sec.  63.6145(d); and
    (ii) Additional monitoring and reporting requirements as provided 
in Sec.  63.6125(c) and Sec.  63.6150.
    (3) An existing, new, or reconstructed stationary combustion 
turbine with a rated peak power output of less than 1.0 megawatt (MW) 
at International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard day 
conditions, which is located at a major source, does not have to meet 
the requirements of this subpart and of subpart A of this part. This 
determination applies to the capacities of individual combustion 
turbines, whether or not an aggregated group of combustion turbines has 
a common add-on air pollution control device. No initial notification 
is necessary, even if the unit appears to be subject to other 
requirements for initial notification. For example, a 0.75 MW emergency 
turbine would not have to submit an initial notification.
    (4) Existing stationary combustion turbines in all subcategories do 
not have to meet the requirements of this subpart and of subpart A of 
this part. No initial notification is necessary for any existing 
stationary combustion turbine, even if a new or reconstructed turbine 
in the same category would require an initial notification.
    (5) Combustion turbine engine test cells/stands do not have to meet 
the requirements of this subpart but may have to meet the requirements 
of subpart A of this part if subject to another subpart. No initial 
notification is necessary, even if the unit appears to be subject to 
other requirements for initial notification.


Sec.  63.6092  Are duct burners and waste heat recovery units covered 
by subpart YYYY?

    No, duct burners and waste heat recovery units are considered steam 
generating units and are not covered under this subpart. In some cases, 
it may be difficult to separately monitor emissions from the turbine 
and duct burner, so sources are allowed to meet the required emission 
limitations with their duct burners in operation.


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

    (a) Affected sources. (1) If you start up a new or reconstructed 
stationary combustion turbine which is a lean premix gas-fired 
stationary combustion turbine, a lean premix oil-fired stationary 
combustion turbine, a diffusion flame gas-fired stationary combustion 
turbine, or a diffusion flame oil-fired stationary combustion turbine 
as defined by this subpart on or before March 5, 2004, you must comply 
with the emission limitations and operating limitations in this subpart 
no later than March 5, 2004.
    (2) If you start up a new or reconstructed stationary combustion 
turbine which is a lean premix gas-fired stationary combustion turbine, 
a lean premix oil-fired stationary combustion turbine, a diffusion 
flame gas-fired stationary combustion turbine, or a diffusion flame 
oil-fired stationary combustion turbine as defined by this subpart 
after March 5, 2004, you must comply with the emission limitations and 
operating limitations in this subpart upon startup of your affected 
source.
    (b) Area sources that become major sources. If your new or 
reconstructed stationary combustion turbine is an area source that 
increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a 
major source of HAP, it must be in compliance with any applicable 
requirements of this subpart when it becomes a major source.
    (c) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec.  63.6145 
according to the schedule in Sec.  63.6145 and in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A.

Emission and Operating Limitations


Sec.  63.6100  What emission and operating limitations must I meet?

    For each new or reconstructed stationary combustion turbine which 
is a lean premix gas-fired stationary combustion turbine, a lean premix 
oil-fired stationary combustion turbine, a diffusion flame gas-fired 
stationary combustion turbine, or a diffusion flame oil-fired 
stationary combustion turbine as defined by this subpart, you must 
comply with the emission limitations and operating limitations in Table 
1 and Table 2 of this subpart.

General Compliance Requirements


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

    (a) 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.
    (b) 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.

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.6110  By what date must I conduct the initial performance 
tests or other initial compliance demonstrations?

    (a) You must conduct the initial performance tests or other initial 
compliance demonstrations in Table 4 of this subpart that apply to you 
within 180 calendar days after the compliance date that is specified 
for your stationary combustion turbine in Sec.  63.6095 and according 
to the provisions in Sec.  63.7(a)(2).
    (b) An owner or operator is not required to conduct an initial 
performance test to determine outlet formaldehyde concentration on 
units for which a performance test has been previously conducted, but 
the test must meet all of the conditions described in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (b)(5) of this section.
    (1) The test must have been conducted using the same methods 
specified in this subpart, and these methods must have been followed 
correctly.
    (2) The test must not be older than 2 years.

[[Page 10539]]

    (3) The test must be reviewed and accepted by the Administrator.
    (4) Either no process or equipment changes must have been made 
since the test was performed, or the owner or operator must be able to 
demonstrate that the results of the performance test, with or without 
adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite process or 
equipment changes.
    (5) The test must be conducted at any load condition within plus or 
minus 10 percent of 100 percent load.


Sec.  63.6115  When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

    Subsequent performance tests must be performed on an annual basis 
as specified in Table 3 of this subpart.


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

    (a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 3 of this 
subpart that applies to you.
    (b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the 
requirements of the General Provisions at Sec.  63.7(e)(1) and under 
the specific conditions in Table 2 of this subpart.
    (c) Do not conduct performance tests or compliance evaluations 
during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. Performance tests 
must be conducted at high load, defined as 100 percent plus or minus 10 
percent.
    (d) You must conduct three separate test runs for each performance 
test, and each test run must last at least 1 hour.
    (e) If your stationary combustion turbine is not equipped with an 
oxidation catalyst, you must petition the Administrator for operating 
limitations that you will monitor to demonstrate compliance with the 
formaldehyde emission limitation in Table 1. You must measure these 
operating parameters during the initial performance test and 
continuously monitor thereafter. Alternatively, you may petition the 
Administrator for approval of no additional operating limitations. If 
you submit a petition under this section, you must not conduct the 
initial performance test until after the petition has been approved or 
disapproved by the Administrator.
    (f) If your stationary combustion turbine is not equipped with an 
oxidation catalyst and you petition the Administrator for approval of 
additional operating limitations to demonstrate compliance with the 
formaldehyde emission limitation in Table 1, your petition must include 
the following information described in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of 
this section.
    (1) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to use as 
additional operating limitations;
    (2) A discussion of the relationship between these parameters and 
HAP emissions, identifying how HAP emissions change with changes in 
these parameters and how limitations on these parameters will serve to 
limit HAP emissions;
    (3) A discussion of how you will establish the upper and/or lower 
values for these parameters which will establish the limits on these 
parameters in the operating limitations;
    (4) A discussion identifying the methods you will use to measure 
and the instruments you will use to monitor these parameters, as well 
as the relative accuracy and precision of these methods and 
instruments; and
    (5) A discussion identifying the frequency and methods for 
recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring these 
parameters.
    (g) If you petition the Administrator for approval of no additional 
operating limitations, your petition must include the information 
described in paragraphs (g)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) Identification of the parameters associated with operation of 
the stationary combustion turbine and any emission control device which 
could change intentionally (e.g., operator adjustment, automatic 
controller adjustment, etc.) or unintentionally (e.g., wear and tear, 
error, etc.) on a routine basis or over time;
    (2) A discussion of the relationship, if any, between changes in 
the parameters and changes in HAP emissions;
    (3) For the parameters which could change in such a way as to 
increase HAP emissions, a discussion of why establishing limitations on 
the parameters is not possible;
    (4) For the parameters which could change in such a way as to 
increase HAP emissions, a discussion of why you could not establish 
upper and/or lower values for the parameters which would establish 
limits on the parameters as operating limitations;
    (5) For the parameters which could change in such a way as to 
increase HAP emissions, a discussion identifying the methods you could 
use to measure them and the instruments you could use to monitor them, 
as well as the relative accuracy and precision of the methods and 
instruments;
    (6) For the parameters, a discussion identifying the frequency and 
methods for recalibrating the instruments you could use to monitor 
them; and
    (7) A discussion of why, from your point of view, it is infeasible, 
unreasonable or unnecessary to adopt the parameters as operating 
limitations.


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

    (a) 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 limitations in Table 2 and as specified in Table 5 
of this subpart.
    (b) If you are operating a stationary combustion turbine that is 
required to comply with the formaldehyde emission limitation and you 
are not using an oxidation catalyst, you must continuously monitor any 
parameters specified in your approved petition to the Administrator, in 
order to comply with the operating limitations in Table 2 and as 
specified in Table 5 of this subpart.
    (c) If you are operating 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 monitor and record 
your fuel usage daily with separate fuel meters to measure the 
volumetric flow rate of each fuel. In addition, you must operate your 
turbine in a manner which minimizes HAP emissions.
    (d) 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 monitor and 
record your distillate oil usage daily for all new and existing 
stationary combustion turbines located at the major source with a non-
resettable hour meter to measure the number of hours that distillate 
oil is fired.


Sec.  63.6130  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission and operating limitations?

    (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission and 
operating limitation that applies to you according to Table 4 of this 
subpart.
    (b) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status 
containing results of the initial compliance demonstration according to 
the requirements in Sec.  63.6145(f).

[[Page 10540]]

Continuous Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.6135  How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

    (a) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and 
required quality assurance or quality control activities (including, as 
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments 
of the monitoring system), you must conduct all parametric monitoring 
at all times the stationary combustion turbine is operating.
    (b) Do not use data recorded during monitor malfunctions, 
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or quality control 
activities for meeting the requirements of this subpart, including data 
averages and calculations. You must use all the data collected during 
all other periods in assessing the performance of the control device or 
in assessing emissions from the new or reconstructed stationary 
combustion turbine.


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

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission 
limitation and operating limitation in Table 1 and Table 2 of this 
subpart according to methods specified in Table 5 of this subpart.
    (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each 
emission imitation or operating limitation. You must also report each 
instance in which you did not meet the requirements in Table 7 of this 
subpart that apply to you. These instances are deviations from the 
emission and operating limitations in this subpart. These deviations 
must be reported according to the requirements in Sec.  63.6150.
    (c) 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 full conformity with all provisions of your startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan, and you have otherwise satisfied the general duty to 
minimize emissions established by Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i).

Notifications, Reports, and Records


Sec.  63.6145  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec.  63.7(b) 
and (c), 63.8(e), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9(b) and (h) that apply to you by 
the dates specified.
    (b) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(2), if you start up your new or 
reconstructed stationary combustion turbine before March 5, 2004, you 
must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days 
after March 5, 2004.
    (c) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b), if you start up your new or 
reconstructed stationary combustion turbine on or after March 5, 2004, 
you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar 
days after you become subject to this subpart.
    (d) If you are required to submit an Initial Notification but are 
otherwise not affected by the emission limitation requirements of this 
subpart, in accordance with Sec.  63.6090(b), your notification must 
include the information in Sec.  63.9(b)(2)(i) through (v) and a 
statement that your new or reconstructed stationary combustion turbine 
has no additional emission limitation requirements and must explain the 
basis of the exclusion (for example, that it operates exclusively as an 
emergency stationary combustion turbine).
    (e) If you are required to conduct an initial performance test, you 
must submit a notification of intent to conduct an initial performance 
test at least 60 calendar days before the initial performance test is 
scheduled to begin as required in Sec.  63.7(b)(1).
    (f) If you are required to comply with the emission limitation for 
formaldehyde, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status 
according to Sec.  63.9(h)(2)(ii). For each performance test required 
to demonstrate compliance with the emission limitation for 
formaldehyde, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status, 
including the performance test results, before the close of business on 
the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test.


Sec.  63.6150  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) 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 (a)(4) of this section. The semiannual 
compliance report must be submitted by the dates specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section, unless the 
Administrator has approved a different schedule.
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the 
report.
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period.
    (4) For each deviation from an emission limitation, the compliance 
report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through 
(a)(4)(iii) of this section.
    (i) The total operating time of each stationary combustion turbine 
during the reporting period.
    (ii) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the 
corrective action taken.
    (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).
    (b) Dates of submittal for the semiannual compliance report are 
provided in (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section.
    (1) The first semiannual compliance report must cover the period 
beginning on the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.6095 and ending 
on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the first date following 
the end of the first calendar half after the compliance date specified 
in Sec.  63.6095.
    (2) The first semiannual compliance report must be postmarked or 
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows 
the end of the first calendar half after the compliance date that is 
specified in Sec.  63.6095.
    (3) Each subsequent semiannual compliance report must cover the 
semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the 
semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (4) Each subsequent semiannual compliance report must be postmarked 
or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the 
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
    (5) For each stationary combustion turbine that is subject to 
permitting regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and if the 
permitting authority has established the date for submitting annual 
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance 
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established 
instead of according to the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of 
this section.
    (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

[[Page 10541]]

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 
(c)(3) of this section.
    (1) Fuel flow rate of each fuel and the heating values that were 
used in your calculations. You must also demonstrate that the 
percentage of heat input provided by landfill gas, digester gas, or 
gasified MSW is equivalent to 10 percent or more of the total fuel 
consumption on an annual basis.
    (2) The operating limits provided in your federally enforceable 
permit, and any deviations from these limits.
    (3) Any problems or errors suspected with the meters.
    (d) Dates of submittal for the annual report are provided in (d)(1) 
through (d)(5) of this section.
    (1) The first annual report must cover the period beginning on the 
compliance date specified in Sec.  63.6095 and ending on December 31.
    (2) The first annual report must be postmarked or delivered no 
later than January 31.
    (3) Each subsequent annual report must cover the annual reporting 
period from January 1 through December 31.
    (4) Each subsequent annual report must be postmarked or delivered 
no later than January 31.
    (5) For each stationary combustion turbine that is subject to 
permitting regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and if the 
permitting authority has established the date for submitting annual 
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance 
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established 
instead of according to the dates in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) 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 
(e)(3) of this section.
    (1) The number of hours distillate oil was fired by each new or 
existing stationary combustion turbine during the reporting period.
    (2) The operating limits provided in your federally enforceable 
permit, and any deviations from these limits.
    (3) Any problems or errors suspected with the meters.


Sec.  63.6155  What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep the records as described in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (5).
    (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to 
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any 
Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you 
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (2) Records of performance tests and performance evaluations as 
required in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (3) Records of the occurrence and duration of each startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction as required in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(i).
    (4) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of 
the air pollution control equipment, if applicable, as required in 
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(ii).
    (5) Records of all maintenance on the air pollution control 
equipment as required in Sec.  63.10(b)(iii).
    (b) If you are operating a stationary combustion turbine which 
fires landfill gas, digester gas or gasified MSW equivalent to 10 
percent or more of the gross heat input on an annual basis, or 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 keep the records of your daily fuel usage 
monitors.
    (c) You must keep the records required in Table 5 of this subpart 
to show continuous compliance with each operating limitation that 
applies to you.


Sec.  63.6160  In what form and how long must I keep my records?

    (a) You must maintain all applicable records in such a manner that 
they can be readily accessed and are suitable for inspection according 
to Sec.  63.10(b)(1).
    (b) As specified in Sec.  63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record 
for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, 
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
    (c) You must retain your records of the most recent 2 years on site 
or your records must be accessible on site. Your records of the 
remaining 3 years may be retained off site.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  63.6165  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 7 of this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Sec.  63.1 through 15 apply to you.


Sec.  63.6170  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart is implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA or a 
delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the 
EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or 
tribal agency, then that agency (as well as the U.S. EPA) has the 
authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact 
your EPA Regional Office to find out whether this subpart is delegated 
to your State, local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under section 40 CFR part 
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this 
section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred 
to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are:
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the emission limitations or 
operating limitations in Sec.  63.6100 under Sec.  63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.  
63.8(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec.  63.10(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (5) Approval of a performance test which was conducted prior to the 
effective date of the rule to determine outlet formaldehyde 
concentration, as specified in Sec.  63.6110(b).


Sec.  63.6175  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA; in 40 CFR 63.2, 
the General Provisions of this part; and in this section:
    Area source means any stationary source of HAP that is not a major 
source as defined in this part.
    Associated equipment as used in this subpart and as referred to in 
section 112(n)(4) of the CAA, means equipment associated with an oil or 
natural gas

[[Page 10542]]

exploration or production well, and includes all equipment from the 
well bore to the point of custody transfer, except glycol dehydration 
units, storage vessels with potential for flash emissions, combustion 
turbines, and stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines.
    CAA means the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., as amended by 
Public Law 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399).
    Cogeneration cycle stationary combustion turbine means any 
stationary combustion turbine that recovers heat from the stationary 
combustion turbine exhaust gases using an exhaust heat exchanger, such 
as a heat recovery steam generator.
    Combined cycle stationary combustion turbine means any stationary 
combustion turbine that recovers heat from the stationary combustion 
turbine exhaust gases using an exhaust heat exchanger to generate steam 
for use in a steam turbine.
    Combustion turbine engine test cells/stands means engine test 
cells/stands, as defined in subpart PPPPP of this part, that test 
stationary combustion turbines.
    Compressor station means any permanent combination of compressors 
that move natural gas at increased pressure from fields, in 
transmission pipelines, or into storage.
    Custody transfer means the transfer of hydrocarbon liquids or 
natural gas: after processing and/or treatment in the producing 
operations, or from storage vessels or automatic transfer facilities or 
other such equipment, including product loading racks, to pipelines or 
any other forms of transportation. For the purposes of this subpart, 
the point at which such liquids or natural gas enters a natural gas 
processing plant is a point of custody transfer.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation or 
operating limitation;
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit;
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limitation or operating limitation 
in this subpart during malfunction, regardless of whether or not such 
failure is permitted by this subpart; or
    (4) Fails to conform to any provision of the applicable startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction plan, or to satisfy the general duty to 
minimize emissions established by Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i).
    Diffusion flame gas-fired stationary combustion turbine means:
    (1)(i) Each stationary combustion turbine which is equipped only to 
fire gas using diffusion flame technology,
    (ii) Each stationary combustion turbine which is equipped both to 
fire gas using diffusion flame technology and to fire oil, during any 
period when it is firing gas, and
    (iii) Each stationary combustion turbine which is equipped both to 
fire gas using diffusion flame technology and to fire oil, and is 
located at a major source where all new, reconstructed, and existing 
stationary combustion turbines fire oil no more than an aggregate total 
of 1000 hours during the calendar year.
    (2) Diffusion flame gas-fired stationary combustion turbines do not 
include:
    (i) Any emergency stationary combustion turbine,
    (ii) Any stationary combustion turbine located on the North Slope 
of Alaska, or
    (iii) Any stationary combustion turbine burning landfill gas or 
digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross heat input 
on an annual basis, or any stationary combustion turbine where gasified 
MSW is used to generate 10 percent or more of the gross heat input on 
an annual basis.
    Diffusion flame oil-fired stationary combustion turbine means:
    (1)(i) Each stationary combustion turbine which is equipped only to 
fire oil using diffusion flame technology, and
    (ii) Each stationary combustion turbine which is equipped both to 
fire oil using diffusion flame technology and to fire gas, and is 
located at a major source where all new, reconstructed, and existing 
stationary combustion turbines fire oil more than an aggregate total of 
1000 hours during the calendar year, during any period when it is 
firing oil.
    (2) Diffusion flame oil-fired stationary combustion turbines do not 
include:
    (i) Any emergency stationary combustion turbine, or
    (ii) Any stationary combustion turbine located on the North Slope 
of Alaska.
    Diffusion flame technology means a configuration of a stationary 
combustion turbine where fuel and air are injected at the combustor and 
are mixed only by diffusion prior to ignition.
    Digester gas means any gaseous by-product of wastewater treatment 
typically formed through the anaerobic decomposition of organic waste 
materials and composed principally of methane and CO2.
    Distillate oil means any liquid obtained from the distillation of 
petroleum with a boiling point of approximately 150 to 360 degrees 
Celsius. One commonly used form is fuel oil number 2.
    Emergency stationary combustion turbine means any stationary 
combustion turbine that operates in an emergency situation. Examples 
include stationary combustion turbines used to produce power for 
critical networks or equipment (including power supplied to portions of 
a facility) when electric power from the local utility is interrupted, 
or stationary combustion turbines used to pump water in the case of 
fire or flood, etc. Emergency stationary combustion turbines do not 
include stationary combustion turbines used as peaking units at 
electric utilities or stationary combustion turbines at industrial 
facilities that typically operate at low capacity factors. Emergency 
stationary combustion turbines may be operated for the purpose of 
maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided that the tests are 
required by the manufacturer, the vendor, or the insurance company 
associated with the turbine. Required testing of such units should be 
minimized, but there is no time limit on the use of emergency 
stationary combustion turbines.
    Glycol dehydration unit means a device in which a liquid glycol 
(including, but not limited to, ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, or 
triethylene glycol) absorbent directly contacts a natural gas stream 
and absorbs water in a contact tower or absorption column (absorber). 
The glycol contacts and absorbs water vapor and other gas stream 
constituents from the natural gas and becomes ``rich'' glycol. This 
glycol is then regenerated in the glycol dehydration unit reboiler. The 
``lean'' glycol is then recycled.
    Hazardous air pollutant (HAP) means any air pollutant listed in or 
pursuant to section 112(b) of the CAA.
    ISO standard day conditions means 288 degrees Kelvin 
(15C), 60 percent relative humidity and 101.3 
kilopascals pressure.
    Landfill gas means a gaseous by-product of the land application of 
municipal refuse typically formed through the anaerobic decomposition 
of waste materials and composed principally of methane and 
CO2.
    Lean premix gas-fired stationary combustion turbine means:
    (1)(i) Each stationary combustion turbine which is equipped only to 
fire gas using lean premix technology,
    (ii) Each stationary combustion turbine which is equipped both to 
fire gas using lean premix technology and to

[[Page 10543]]

fire oil, during any period when it is firing gas, and
    (iii) Each stationary combustion turbine which is equipped both to 
fire gas using lean premix technology and to fire oil, and is located 
at a major source where all new, reconstructed, and existing stationary 
combustion turbines fire oil no more than an aggregate total of 1000 
hours during the calendar year.
    (2) Lean premix gas-fired stationary combustion turbines do not 
include:
    (i) Any emergency stationary combustion turbine,
    (ii) Any stationary combustion turbine located on the North Slope 
of Alaska, or
    (iii) Any stationary combustion turbine burning landfill gas or 
digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross heat input 
on an annual basis, or any stationary combustion turbine where gasified 
MSW is used to generate 10 percent or more of the gross heat input on 
an annual basis.
    Lean premix oil-fired stationary combustion turbine means:
    (1)(i) Each stationary combustion turbine which is equipped only to 
fire oil using lean premix technology, and
    (ii) Each stationary combustion turbine which is equipped both to 
fire oil using lean premix technology and to fire gas, and is located 
at a major source where all new, reconstructed, and existing stationary 
combustion turbines fire oil more than an aggregate total of 1000 hours 
during the calendar year, during any period when it is firing oil.
    (2) Lean premix oil-fired stationary combustion turbines do not 
include:
    (i) Any emergency stationary combustion turbine, or
    (ii) Any stationary combustion turbine located on the North Slope 
of Alaska.
    Lean premix technology means a configuration of a stationary 
combustion turbine where the air and fuel are thoroughly mixed to form 
a lean mixture for combustion in the combustor. Mixing may occur before 
or in the combustion chamber.
    Major source, as used in this subpart, shall have the same meaning 
as in Sec.  63.2, except that:
    (1) Emissions from any oil or gas exploration or production well 
(with its associated equipment (as defined in this section)) and 
emissions from any pipeline compressor station or pump station shall 
not be aggregated with emissions from other similar units, to determine 
whether such emission points or stations are major sources, even when 
emission points are in a contiguous area or under common control;
    (2) For oil and gas production facilities, emissions from 
processes, operations, or equipment that are not part of the same oil 
and gas production facility, as defined in this section, shall not be 
aggregated;
    (3) For production field facilities, only HAP emissions from glycol 
dehydration units, storage vessel with the potential for flash 
emissions, combustion turbines and reciprocating internal combustion 
engines shall be aggregated for a major source determination; and
    (4) Emissions from processes, operations, and equipment that are 
not part of the same natural gas transmission and storage facility, as 
defined in this section, shall not be aggregated.
    Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably 
preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, process 
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner which 
causes or has the potential to cause the emission limitations in this 
standard to be exceeded. Failures that are caused in part by poor 
maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions.
    Municipal solid waste as used in this subpart is as defined in 
Sec.  60.1465 of Subpart AAAA of 40 CFR Part 60, New Source Performance 
Standards for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units.
    Natural gas means a naturally occurring mixture of hydrocarbon and 
non-hydrocarbon gases found in geologic formations beneath the Earth's 
surface, of which the principal constituent is methane. May be field or 
pipeline quality. For the purposes of this subpart, the definition of 
natural gas includes similarly constituted fuels such as field gas, 
refinery gas, and syngas.
    Natural gas transmission means the pipelines used for the long 
distance transport of natural gas (excluding processing). Specific 
equipment used in natural gas transmission includes the land, mains, 
valves, meters, boosters, regulators, storage vessels, dehydrators, 
compressors, and their driving units and appurtenances, and equipment 
used transporting gas from a production plant, delivery point of 
purchased gas, gathering system, storage area, or other wholesale 
source of gas to one or more distribution area(s).
    Natural gas transmission and storage facility means any grouping of 
equipment where natural gas is processed, compressed, or stored prior 
to entering a pipeline to a local distribution company or (if there is 
no local distribution company) to a final end user. Examples of a 
facility for this source category are: an underground natural gas 
storage operation; or a natural gas compressor station that receives 
natural gas via pipeline, from an underground natural gas storage 
operation, or from a natural gas processing plant. The emission points 
associated with these phases include, but are not limited to, process 
vents. Processes that may have vents include, but are not limited to, 
dehydration and compressor station engines. Facility, for the purpose 
of a major source determination, means natural gas transmission and 
storage equipment that is located inside the boundaries of an 
individual surface site (as defined in this section) and is connected 
by ancillary equipment, such as gas flow lines or power lines. 
Equipment that is part of a facility will typically be located within 
close proximity to other equipment located at the same facility. 
Natural gas transmission and storage equipment or groupings of 
equipment located on different gas leases, mineral fee tracts, lease 
tracts, subsurface unit areas, surface fee tracts, or surface lease 
tracts shall not be considered part of the same facility.
    North Slope of Alaska means the area north of the Arctic Circle 
(latitude 66.5 degrees North).
    Oil and gas production facility as used in this subpart means any 
grouping of equipment where hydrocarbon liquids are processed, upgraded 
(i.e., remove impurities or other constituents to meet contract 
specifications), or stored prior to the point of custody transfer; or 
where natural gas is processed, upgraded, or stored prior to entering 
the natural gas transmission and storage source category. For purposes 
of a major source determination, facility (including a building, 
structure, or installation) means oil and natural gas production and 
processing equipment that is located within the boundaries of an 
individual surface site as defined in this section. Equipment that is 
part of a facility will typically be located within close proximity to 
other equipment located at the same facility. Pieces of production 
equipment or groupings of equipment located on different oil and gas 
leases, mineral fee tracts, lease tracts, subsurface or surface unit 
areas, surface fee tracts, surface lease tracts, or separate surface 
sites, whether or not connected by a road, waterway, power line or 
pipeline, shall not be considered part of the same facility. Examples 
of facilities in the oil and natural gas production source category 
include, but are not limited to, well sites, satellite tank batteries, 
central tank batteries, a compressor station that transports natural 
gas to a natural gas processing plant, and natural gas processing 
plants.
    Oxidation catalyst emission control device means an emission 
control

[[Page 10544]]

device that incorporates catalytic oxidation to reduce CO emissions.
    Potential to emit means the maximum capacity of a stationary source 
to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any 
physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the stationary 
source to emit a pollutant, including air pollution control equipment 
and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of 
material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of 
its design if the limitation or the effect it would have on emissions 
is federally enforceable. For oil and natural gas production facilities 
subject to subpart HH of this part, the potential to emit provisions in 
Sec.  63.760(a) may be used. For natural gas transmission and storage 
facilities subject to subpart HHH of this part, the maximum annual 
facility gas throughput for storage facilities may be determined 
according to Sec.  63.1270(a)(1) and the maximum annual throughput for 
transmission facilities may be determined according to Sec.  
63.1270(a)(2).
    Production field facility means those oil and gas production 
facilities located prior to the point of custody transfer.
    Production well means any hole drilled in the earth from which 
crude oil, condensate, or field natural gas is extracted.
    Regenerative/recuperative cycle stationary combustion turbine means 
any stationary combustion turbine that recovers heat from the 
stationary combustion turbine exhaust gases using an exhaust heat 
exchanger to preheat the combustion air entering the combustion chamber 
of the stationary combustion turbine.
    Research or laboratory facility means any stationary source whose 
primary purpose is to conduct research and development into new 
processes and products, where such source is operated under the close 
supervision of technically trained personnel and is not engaged in the 
manufacture of products for commercial sale in commerce, except in a de 
minimis matter.
    Simple cycle stationary combustion turbine means any stationary 
combustion turbine that does not recover heat from the stationary 
combustion turbine exhaust gases.
    Stationary combustion turbine means all equipment, including but 
not limited to the turbine, the fuel, air, lubrication and exhaust gas 
systems, control systems (except emissions control equipment), and any 
ancillary components and sub-components comprising any simple cycle 
stationary combustion turbine, any regenerative/recuperative cycle 
stationary combustion turbine, the combustion turbine portion of any 
stationary cogeneration cycle combustion system, or the combustion 
turbine portion of any stationary combined cycle steam/electric 
generating system. Stationary means that the combustion turbine is not 
self propelled or intended to be propelled while performing its 
function. Stationary combustion turbines do not include turbines 
located at a research or laboratory facility, if research is conducted 
on the turbine itself and the turbine is not being used to power other 
applications at the research or laboratory facility.
    Storage vessel with the potential for flash emissions means any 
storage vessel that contains a hydrocarbon liquid with a stock tank 
gas-to-oil ratio equal to or greater than 0.31 cubic meters per liter 
and an American Petroleum Institute gravity equal to or greater than 40 
degrees and an actual annual average hydrocarbon liquid throughput 
equal to or greater than 79,500 liters per day. Flash emissions occur 
when dissolved hydrocarbons in the fluid evolve from solution when the 
fluid pressure is reduced.
    Surface site means any combination of one or more graded pad sites, 
gravel pad sites, foundations, platforms, or the immediate physical 
location upon which equipment is physically affixed.

Tables to Subpart YYYY of Part 63.

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

        Table 1 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63.--Emission Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 For each new or reconstructed stationary
   combustion turbine described in Sec.      You must meet the following
          63.6100 which is . . .             emission limitations . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. a lean premix gas-fired stationary      limit the concentration of
 combustion turbine as defined in this       formaldehyde to 91 ppbvd or
 subpart,                                    less at 15 percent O2.
2. a lean premix oil-fired stationary
 combustion turbine as defined in this
 subpart,
3. a diffusion flame gas-fired stationary
 combustion turbine as defined in this
 subpart, or
4. a diffusion flame oil-fired stationary
 combustion turbine as defined in this
 subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

       Table 2 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63.--Operating Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               For . . .                          You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. each stationary combustion turbine   maintain the 4-hour rolling
 that is required to comply with the      average of the catalyst inlet
 emission limitation for formaldehyde     temperature within the range
 and is using an oxidation catalyst.      suggested by the catalyst
                                          manufacturer.
----------------------------------------
 2. each stationary combustion turbine   maintain any operating
 that is required to comply with the      limitations approved by the
 emission limitation for formaldehyde     Administrator.
 and is not using an oxidation catalyst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

[[Page 10545]]



 Table 3 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63.--Requirements for Performance Tests
                  and Initial Compliance Demonstrations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      According to the
       You must . . .              Using . . .            following
                                                     requirements . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 a. demonstrate formaldehyde  Test Method 320 of    formaldehyde
 emissions meet the emission   40 CFR part 63,       concentration must
 limitations specified in      appendix A; ASTM      be corrected to 15
 Table 1 by a performance      D6348-03 provided     percent O2, dry
 test initially and on an      that %R as            basis. Results of
 annual basis AND.             determined in Annex   this test consist
                               A5 of ASTM D6348-03   of the average of
                               is equal or greater   the three 1 hour
                               than 70% and less     runs. Test must be
                               than or equal to      conducted within 10
                               130%; or other        percent of 100
                               methods approved by   percent load.
                               the Administrator.
-----------------------------
 b. select the sampling port  Method 1 or 1A of 40  if using an air
 location and the number of    CFR part 60,          pollution control
 traverse points AND.          appendix A Sec.       device, the
                               63.7(d)(1)(i).        sampling site must
                                                     be located at the
                                                     outlet of the air
                                                     pollution control
                                                     device.
-----------------------------
 c. determine the O2          Method 3A or 3B of    measurements to
 concentration at the          40 CFR part 60,       determine O2
 sampling port location AND.   appendix A.           concentration must
                                                     be made at the same
                                                     time as the
                                                     performance test.
-----------------------------
 d. determine the moisture    Method 4 of 40 CFR    measurements to
 content at the sampling       part 60, appendix A   determine moisture
 port location for the         or Test Method 320    content must be
 purposes of correcting the    of 40 CFR part 63,    made at the same
 formaldehyde concentration    appendix A, or ASTM   time as the
 to a dry basis.               D6348-03.             performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    As stated in Sec. Sec.  63.6110 and 63.6130, you must comply 
with the following requirements to demonstrate initial compliance 
with emission limitations:

  Table 4 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Emission
                               Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        You have demonstrated initial
           For the . . .                     compliance if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 emission limitation for            the average formaldehyde
 formaldehyde..                      concentration meets the emission
                                     limitations specified in Table 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    As stated in Sec. Sec.  63.6135 and 63.6140, you must comply 
with the following requirements to demonstrate continuing compliance 
with operating limitations:

     Table 5 of Subpart YYYY of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance With
                          Operating Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 For each stationary combustion turbine
 complying with the emission limitation  You must demonstrate continuous
         for formaldehyde . . .                compliance by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. with an oxidation catalyst.........  continuously monitoring the
                                          inlet temperature to the
                                          catalyst and maintaining the 4-
                                          hour rolling average of the
                                          inlet temperature within the
                                          range suggested by the
                                          catalyst manufacturer.
----------------------------------------
 2. without the use of an oxidation      continuously monitoring the
 catalyst.                                operating limitations that
                                          have been approved in your
                                          petition to the Administrator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    As stated in Sec.  63.6150, you must comply with the following 
requirements for reports:

      Table 6 of Subpart YYYY of Part 63.--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      According to the
 If you own or operate a . .     you must . . .           following
              .                                      requirements . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. stationary combustion     report your           semiannually,
 turbine which must comply     compliance status.    according to the
 with the formaldehyde                               requirements of
 emission limitation.                                Sec.   63.6150.
-----------------------------
 2. stationary combustion     report (1) the fuel   annually, according
 turbine which fires           flow rate of each     to the requirements
 landfill gas, digester gas    fuel and the          in Sec.   63.6150.
 or gasified MSW equivalent    heating values that
 to 10 percent or more of      were used in your
 the gross heat input on an    calculations, and
 annual basis.                 you must
                               demonstrate that
                               the percentage of
                               heat input provided
                               by landfill gas,
                               digester gas, or
                               gasified MSW is
                               equivalent to 10
                               percent or more of
                               the gross heat
                               input on an annual
                               basis, (2) the
                               operating limits
                               provided in your
                               federally
                               enforceable permit,
                               and any deviations
                               from these limits,
                               and (3) any
                               problems or errors
                               suspected with the
                               meters.
-----------------------------

[[Page 10546]]

 
 3. a lean premix gas-fired   report (1) the        annually, according
 stationary combustion         number of hours       to the requirements
 turbine or a diffusion        distillate oil was    in Sec.   63.6150.
 flame gas-fired stationary    fired by each new
 combustion turbine as         or existing
 defined by this subpart,      stationary
 and you use any quantity of   combustion turbine
 distillate oil to fire any    during the
 new or existing stationary    reporting period,
 combustion turbine which is   (2) the operating
 located at the same major     limits provided in
 source.                       your federally
                               enforceable permit,
                               and any deviations
                               from these limits,
                               and (3) any
                               problems or errors
                               suspected with the
                               meters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You must comply with the applicable General Provisions 
requirements:

            Table 7 of Subpart YYYY of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart YYYY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Citation                       Subject           Applies to Subpart YYYY          Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1........................  General applicability   Yes........................  Additional terms
                                      of the General                                       defined in Sec.
                                      Provisions.                                          63.6175.
Sec.   63.2........................  Definitions...........  Yes........................  Additional terms
                                                                                           defined in Sec.
                                                                                           63.6175.
Sec.   63.3........................  Units and               Yes........................
                                      abbreviations.
Sec.   63.4........................  Prohibited activities.  Yes........................
Sec.   63.5........................  Construction and        Yes........................
                                      reconstruction.
Sec.   63.6(a).....................  Applicability.........  Yes........................
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(4)..............  Compliance dates for    Yes........................
                                      new and reconstructed
                                      sources.
Sec.   63.6(b)(5)..................  Notification..........  Yes........................
Sec.   63.6(b)(6)..................  [Reserved]............
Sec.   63.6(b)(7)..................  Compliance dates for    Yes........................
                                      new and reconstructed
                                      area sources that
                                      become major.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2)..............  Compliance dates for    Yes........................
                                      existing sources.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4)..............  [Reserved]............
Sec.   63.6(c)(5)..................  Compliance dates for    Yes........................
                                      existing area sources
                                      that become major.
Sec.   63.6(d).....................  [Reserved]............
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)..................  Operation and           Yes........................
                                      maintenance.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)..................  [Reserved]............
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)..................  SSMP..................  Yes........................
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)..................  Applicability of        Yes........................
                                      standards except
                                      during startup,
                                      shutdown, or
                                      malfunction (SSM).
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)..................  Methods for             Yes........................
                                      determining
                                      compliance.
Sec.   63.6(f)(3)..................  Finding of compliance.  Yes........................
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3)..............  Use of alternative      Yes........................
                                      standard.
Sec.   63.6(h).....................  Opacity and visible     No.........................  Subpart YYYY does not
                                      emission standards.                                  contain opacity or
                                                                                           visible emission
                                                                                           standards.
Sec.   63.6(i).....................  Compliance extension    Yes........................
                                      procedures and
                                      criteria.
Sec.   63.6(j).....................  Presidential            Yes........................
                                      compliance exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2)..............  Performance test dates  Yes........................  Subpart YYYY contains
                                                                                           performance test
                                                                                           dates at Sec.
                                                                                           63.6110.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3)..................  Section 114 authority.  Yes........................
Sec.   63.7(b)(1)..................  Notification of         Yes........................
                                      performance test.
Sec.   63.7(b)(2)..................  Notification of         Yes........................
                                      rescheduling.
Sec.   63.7(c).....................  Quality assurance/test  Yes........................
                                      plan.
Sec.   63.7(d).....................  Testing facilities....  Yes........................
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)..................  Conditions for          Yes........................
                                      conducting
                                      performance tests.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)..................  Conduct of performance  Yes........................  Subpart YYYY specifies
                                      tests and reduction                                  test methods at Sec.
                                      of data.                                              63.6120.
Sec.   63.7(e)(3)..................  Test run duration.....  Yes........................
Sec.   63.7(e)(4)..................  Administrator may       Yes........................
                                      require other testing
                                      under section 114 of
                                      the CAA.
Sec.   63.7(f).....................  Alternative test        Yes........................
                                      method provisions.
Sec.   63.7(g).....................  Performance test data   Yes........................
                                      analysis,
                                      recordkeeping, and
                                      reporting.
Sec.   63.7(h).....................  Waiver of tests.......  Yes........................
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)..................  Applicability of        Yes........................  Subpart YYYY contains
                                      monitoring                                           specific requirements
                                      requirements.                                        for monitoring at
                                                                                           Sec.   63.6125.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2)..................  Performance             Yes........................
                                      specifications.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)..................  [Reserved]............
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)..................  Monitoring for control  No.........................
                                      devices.

[[Page 10547]]

 
Sec.   63.8(b)(1)..................  Monitoring............  Yes........................
Sec.   63.8(b)(2)-(3)..............  Multiple effluents and  Yes........................
                                      multiple monitoring
                                      systems.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)..................  Monitoring system       Yes........................
                                      operation and
                                      maintenance.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)...............  Routine and             Yes........................
                                      predictable SSM.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)..............  Parts for repair of     Yes........................
                                      CMS readily available.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii).............  SSMP for CMS required.  Yes........................
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)..............  Monitoring system       Yes........................
                                      installation.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)..................  Continuous monitoring   Yes........................  Except that subpart
                                      system (CMS)                                         YYYY does not require
                                      requirements.                                        continuous opacity
                                                                                           monitoring systems
                                                                                           (COMS).
Sec.   63.8(c)(5)..................  COMS minimum            No.........................
                                      procedures.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)-(8)..............  CMS requirements......  Yes........................  Except that subpart
                                                                                           YYYY does not require
                                                                                           COMS.
Sec.   63.8(d).....................  CMS quality control...  Yes........................
Sec.   63.8(e).....................  CMS performance         Yes........................  Except for Sec.
                                      evaluation.                                          63.8(e)(5)(ii), which
                                                                                           applies to COMS.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)..............  Alternative monitoring  Yes........................
                                      method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)..................  Alternative to          Yes........................
                                      relative accuracy
                                      test.
Sec.   63.8(g).....................  Data reduction........  Yes........................  Except that provisions
                                                                                           for COMS are not
                                                                                           applicable. Averaging
                                                                                           periods for
                                                                                           demonstrating
                                                                                           compliance are
                                                                                           specified at Sec.
                                                                                           Sec.   63.6135 and
                                                                                           63.6140.
Sec.   63.9(a).....................  Applicability and       Yes........................
                                      State delegation of
                                      notification
                                      requirements.
Sec.   63.9(b)(1)-(5)..............  Initial notifications.  Yes........................  Except that Sec.
                                                                                           63.9(b)(3) is
                                                                                           reserved.
Sec.   63.9(c).....................  Request for compliance  Yes........................
                                      extension.
Sec.   63.9(d).....................  Notification of         Yes........................
                                      special compliance
                                      requirements for new
                                      sources.
Sec.   63.9(e).....................  Notification of         Yes........................
                                      performance test.
Sec.   63.9(f).....................  Notification of         No.........................  Subpart YYYY does not
                                      visible emissions/                                   contain opacity or VE
                                      opacity test.                                        standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)(1)..................  Notification of         Yes........................
                                      performance
                                      evaluation.
Sec.   63.9(g)(2)..................  Notification of use of  No.........................  Subpart YYYY does not
                                      COMS data.                                           contain opacity or VE
                                                                                           standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)(3)..................  Notification that       Yes........................  If alternative is in
                                      criterion for                                        use.
                                      alternative to
                                      relative accuracy
                                      test audit (RATA) is
                                      exceeded.
Sec.   63.9(h).....................  Notification of         Yes........................  Except that
                                      compliance status.                                   notifications for
                                                                                           sources not
                                                                                           conducting
                                                                                           performance tests are
                                                                                           due 30 days after
                                                                                           completion of
                                                                                           performance
                                                                                           evaluations. Sec.
                                                                                           63.9(h)(4) is
                                                                                           reserved.
Sec.   63.9(i).....................  Adjustment of           Yes........................
                                      submittal deadlines.
Sec.   63.9(j).....................  Change in previous      Yes........................
                                      information.
Sec.   63.10(a)....................  Administrative          Yes........................
                                      provisions for
                                      recordkeeping and
                                      reporting.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1).................  Record retention......  Yes........................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)-(iii)........  Records related to SSM  Yes........................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v).........  Records related to      Yes........................
                                      actions during SSM.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xi)........  CMS records...........  Yes........................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii)............  Record when under       Yes........................
                                      waiver.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii)...........  Records when using      Yes........................  For CO standard if
                                      alternative to RATA.                                 using RATA
                                                                                           alternative.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv)............  Records of supporting   Yes........................
                                      documentation.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3).................  Records of              Yes........................
                                      applicability
                                      determination.
Sec.   63.10(c)....................  Additional records for  Yes........................  Except that Sec.
                                      sources using CMS.                                   63.10(c)(2)-(4) and
                                                                                           (9) are reserved.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1).................  General reporting       Yes........................
                                      requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2).................  Report of performance   Yes........................
                                      test results.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3).................  Reporting opacity or    No.........................  Subpart YYYY does not
                                      VE observations.                                     contain opacity or VE
                                                                                           standards.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4).................  Progress reports......  Yes........................
Sec.   63.10(d)(5).................  Startup, shutdown, and  No.........................  Subpart YYYY does not
                                      malfunction reports.                                 require reporting of
                                                                                           startup, shutdowns,
                                                                                           or malfunctions.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1) and (2)(i)......  Additional CMS reports  Yes........................
Sec.   63.10(e)(2)(ii).............  COMS-related report...  No.........................  Subpart YYYY does not
                                                                                           require COMS.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3).................  Excess emissions and    Yes........................
                                      parameter exceedances
                                      reports.

[[Page 10548]]

 
Sec.   63.10(e)(4).................  Reporting COMS data...  No.........................  Subpart YYYY does not
                                                                                           require COMS.
Sec.   63.10(f)....................  Waiver for              Yes........................
                                      recordkeeping and
                                      reporting.
Sec.   63.11.......................  Flares................  No.........................
Sec.   63.12.......................  State authority and     Yes........................
                                      delegations.
Sec.   63.13.......................  Addresses.............  Yes........................
Sec.   63.14.......................  Incorporation by        Yes........................
                                      reference.
Sec.   63.15.......................  Availability of         Yes........................
                                      information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 04-4530 Filed 3-4-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P