Standards of Performance for Stationary Gas Turbines; Standards of Performance for Stationary Combustion Turbines, 52553-52581 [2012-20524]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 29, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52553-52581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20524]



[[Page 52553]]

Vol. 77

Wednesday,

No. 168

August 29, 2012

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 60





Standards of Performance for Stationary Gas Turbines; Standards of 
Performance for Stationary Combustion Turbines; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2012 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 52554]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0490; FRL-9695-6]
RIN 2060-AQ29


Standards of Performance for Stationary Gas Turbines; Standards 
of Performance for Stationary Combustion Turbines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to amend the new source performance 
standards (NSPS) for stationary gas turbines and stationary combustion 
turbines. These amendments are primarily in response to issues raised 
by the regulated community. On July 6, 2006, the EPA promulgated 
amendments to the new source performance standards for stationary 
combustion turbines. On September 5, 2006, the Utility Air Regulatory 
Group filed a petition for reconsideration of certain aspects of the 
promulgated standards. The EPA is proposing to amend specific 
provisions in the NSPS to resolve issues and questions raised by the 
petition for reconsideration, and to address other technical and 
editorial issues. In addition, this proposed rule would amend the 
location and wording of existing paragraphs for clarity. The proposed 
amendments would increase the environmental benefits of the existing 
requirements because the emission standards would apply at all times. 
The proposed amendments would also promote efficiency by recognizing 
the environmental benefit of combined heat and power and the beneficial 
use of low energy content gases.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 29, 2012.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA by September 10, 2012 
requesting to speak at a public hearing, the EPA will hold a public 
hearing on or about September 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0490, by one of the following methods:
     https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, U.S. EPA, Mail Code 6102T, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 
total of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0490, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 
3334, Washington, DC, 20004. Such deliveries are accepted only during 
the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should 
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0490. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through 
regulations.gov or email. Send or deliver information identified as CBI 
only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control 
Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0490. Clearly mark the 
part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 
information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 
outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically 
within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as 
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain 
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the 
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless 
you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email 
comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, 
your email address will be automatically captured and included as part 
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available 
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA 
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in 
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the 
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your 
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, 
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For 
additional information about the EPA's public docket visit the EPA 
Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation 
Docket EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC. The 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 Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 
number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.
    Public Hearing: If a public hearing is requested, it will be held 
at the EPA Facility Complex in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
or at an alternate site nearby. Contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 
541-7966 to request a hearing, to request to speak at a public hearing, 
to determine if a hearing will be held, or to determine the hearing 
location.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Christian Fellner, Energy 
Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), U.S. 
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-4003, 
facsimile number (919) 541-5450, electronic mail (email) address: 
fellner.christian@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities: Entities potentially 
affected by this proposed action include, but are not limited to, the 
following:

[[Page 52555]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Examples of regulated
             Category               NAICS \1\           entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..........................       2211  Electric services.
                                       486210  Natural gas transmission.
                                       211111  Crude petroleum and
                                                natural gas.
                                       211112  Natural gas liquids.
                                          221  Electric and other
                                                services, combined.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
proposed rule. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this 
proposed rule, you should examine the applicability criteria in 
Sec. Sec.  60.4305 and 60.4310. If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of this proposed rule to a particular entity, contact the 
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    WorldWide Web (WWW): Following the Administrator's signature, a 
copy of the proposed amendments will be posted on the Technology 
Transfer Network's (TTN) policy and guidance page for newly proposed or 
promulgated rules at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides 
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution 
control.
    Outline: The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
II. Proposed Amendments
    A. Applicability
    B. NOX Emissions Standard
    C. SO2 Emissions Standard
    D. Malfunction Affirmative Defense
    E. Electronic Data Submittal
    F. Additional Proposed Amendments
    G. Additional Request for Comments
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations.

I. Background

    On July 6, 2006, the EPA promulgated revised new source performance 
standards (NSPS) for stationary combustion turbines (subpart KKKK of 40 
CFR part 60) applicable to stationary combustion turbines on which 
construction, modification or reconstruction is commenced after 
February 18, 2005 (71 FR 38482). The new standards in subpart KKKK 
reflect advances in turbine design and nitrogen oxide (NOX) 
emission control technologies since the standards for these units were 
originally promulgated in 1979 in subpart GG of 40 CFR part 60 (44 FR 
52798). The new standards also reflect the use of lower sulfur fuels.
    A petition for reconsideration of the revised NSPS was filed by the 
Utility Air Regulatory Group on September 5, 2006. The EPA has decided 
to grant reconsideration of subpart KKKK to the extent specified in 
this proposed rule. The amendments proposed by this action address 
issues for which the petitioners specifically requested reconsideration 
(see docket entry EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0490-0325) and other matters as 
described below.
    As part of this action, the EPA is also proposing to amend other 
rule language to correct technical omissions, typographical errors, 
grammatical errors and to address various other issues that have been 
identified since promulgation. A significant issue identified since 
promulgation is the development of new stationary combustion 
technologies that are capable of burning a variety of low-British 
thermal units (Btu) gases. The amendments proposed in this action 
include amending the sulfur dioxide (SO2) standard for all 
low-Btu gases similar to the biogas (i.e., landfill gas) standard 
currently in subpart KKKK. The proposed amendments would not change the 
EPA's original projections for this proposed rule's compliance costs, 
environmental benefits, burden on industry or the number of affected 
facilities. The EPA is also proposing limited conforming amendments to 
subpart GG.
    Finally, the EPA is proposing to amend subpart KKKK to exempt some 
stationary combustion turbines from the emission standards in subpart 
KKKK. First, owners/operators of stationary combustion turbines that 
meet the applicability criteria of, and that are complying with the 
SO2 standard in, either subpart J or Ja (standards of 
performance for petroleum refineries) would be exempt from complying 
with the otherwise applicable SO2 standard in subpart KKKK. 
In addition, owners/operators of stationary combustion turbines covered 
that meet the applicability criteria of, and that are complying with 
the SO2 and NOX standards in subparts Ea, Eb, Cd, 
AAAA or BBBB (the municipal solid waste regulations) would be exempt 
from complying with the otherwise applicable SO2 and 
NOX standards in subpart KKKK.

II. Proposed Amendments

    We are proposing to amend subparts GG and KKKK of 40 CFR part 60 to 
clarify the intent in applying and implementing specific rule 
requirements, to correct unintentional technical omissions and 
editorial errors, and address various other issues that have been 
identified since the promulgation of subpart KKKK. A summary of the 
proposed substantive amendments to the NSPS for stationary combustion 
turbines and the rationale for these amendments are below.
    In addition, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 60.17 (incorporations 
by reference) and republish subpart KKKK in its entirety. The proposed 
amendments include updating 40 CFR 60.17 to include additional test 
methods identified in subpart KKKK and revising the wording and writing 
style to clarify the requirements of the NSPS. We do not intend for 
these editorial revisions to substantively change any of the technical 
or administrative requirements of the subpart and have concluded that 
they do not do so. To the extent that we determine that the editorial 
revisions do effect any unintended substantive changes, we will correct 
the problem in taking final action on the proposed rule.

A. Applicability

    We are proposing to make five amendments to the applicability of 
subpart KKKK of 40 CFR part 60. First,

[[Page 52556]]

the combustion turbine engine (the air compressor, combustor and 
turbine sections) is the primary source of emissions from a stationary 
combustion turbine. However, due to the broad definition of the 
affected facility in subpart KKKK, the combustion turbine engine does 
not necessarily constitute the majority of the costs of a new 
stationary combustion turbine. The expanded definition of a stationary 
combustion turbine in subpart KKKK is intended to simplify compliance 
and recognize the environmental benefit of heat recovery at combined 
cycle and combined heat and power (CHP) facilities. It is not intended 
to change the circumstances in which a turbine engine is designated as 
new or reconstructed. However, under subpart KKKK it is not clear 
whether a CHP or combined cycle facility that replaces the turbine 
engine would be considered ``new'' or ``reconstructed.'' The existing 
language in subpart KKKK could be interpreted to mean that replacement 
of a turbine engine with a new turbine engine at an existing combined 
cycle or CHP facility not currently subject to subpart KKKK would 
result in the new turbine engine being subject to subpart GG. In that 
case, the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) would continue to comply 
with the same boiler NSPS as prior to the turbine engine replacement 
and two NSPS would apply to the facility. It was clearly not the intent 
when subpart KKKK was promulgated that these turbine engines would only 
be subject to emission control technologies that were available in the 
1970s. In this situation, combustion controls have the same cost 
effectiveness as other new or reconstructed turbine engines. In 
addition, compliance is minimally impacted by the design of the HRSG, 
so there is no reason that two pieces of equipment should not be 
combined. Since the subpart KKKK standards are input-based, with 
optional alternative output-based standards, the efficiency of the HRSG 
is not essential for demonstrating compliance. Further, the presence of 
duct burners should not significantly impact the emissions rate since 
typical low NOX natural gas-fired duct burners contribute 
between 15 to 25 parts per million (ppm) NOX corrected to 15 
percent oxygen (O2) and ultra low NOX duct 
burners are available that only contribute approximately 3 ppm 
NOX corrected to 15 percent O2. Therefore, while 
we are maintaining the broad definition of an affected facility, we are 
proposing that for the purposes of determining applicability and if a 
stationary combustion turbine is ``new'' or ``reconstructed,'' only the 
combustion turbine engine itself will be considered. This approach 
reflects the environmental benefits of heat recovery and output-based 
standards and was the intent of the original rule. This rule as amended 
would make it clear that the replacement of a turbine engine at a CHP 
or combined cycle facility that is not currently subject to subpart 
KKKK with a new turbine engine would result in the establishment of a 
new stationary combustion turbine under subpart KKKK, as was intended 
when subpart KKKK was promulgated. Furthermore, the addition of a new 
turbine engine to an existing HRSG would result in the establishment of 
a new stationary combustion turbine under subpart KKKK that includes 
the existing heat recovery steam generating unit. However, the 
construction or reconstruction of a HRSG associated with a turbine 
engine covered by subpart GG would not result in the entire facility 
being subject to subpart KKKK. A positive aspect of this approach is 
that the most current subpart KKKK requirements would apply to turbine 
engines that are replaced at combined cycle and CHP facilities already 
subject to subpart KKKK.
    In the event the final rule does not include this clarification, 
the stationary combustion engine replaced at an existing combined cycle 
or CHP facility would be covered by subpart GG, and the HRSG would be 
covered by the applicable steam generating unit NSPS. Subpart GG would 
be amended to include NOX emission standards for turbine 
engines that are identical to those in Table 1 of subpart KKKK. The 
subpart GG SO2 emission standards and the monitoring, 
testing and reporting requirements would also be amended to be 
identical to the requirements for simple cycle turbines subject to 
subpart KKKK. With this approach, subpart GG would have to be amended 
each time that the subpart KKKK standards are amended. To provide 
additional compliance flexibility, we would add the ability for owners/
operators of new and reconstructed turbine engine replacements at 
existing combined cycle and CHP facilities to petition the 
Administrator to voluntarily comply with the new and reconstructed 
requirements, as applicable, in subpart KKKK as an alternative to 
demonstrating compliance with amended subpart GG and applicable boiler 
NSPS separately. This approach would provide an equivalent amount of 
environmental protection as the previously described approach. However, 
we have concluded that the previously described approach avoids 
petition requirement and would reduce the regulatory burden of the 
proposed rule. We specifically request comment on the level of 
environmental protection and regulatory burden for each approach. A 
disadvantage of this approach is that the most current subpart KKKK 
requirements would not apply to turbine engines that are replaced at 
combined cycle and CHP facilities already subject to subpart KKKK. We 
are requesting comment if this approach could be amended to assure that 
future amended subpart KKKK requirements would apply to new and 
reconstructed turbine engines.
    Second, we are proposing to exempt owners/operators of stationary 
combustion turbines that meet the applicability requirements and that 
are complying with the SO2 standard in either subparts J or 
Ja of 40 CFR part 60 (Standards of performance for petroleum 
refineries) from complying with the otherwise applicable SO2 
standard in subpart KKKK. The SO2 standard in both subparts 
J and Ja is more stringent than in subpart KKKK, so this proposed 
amendment would simplify compliance for owner/operators of petroleum 
refineries without an increase in pollutant emissions. In addition, 
owners/operators of stationary combustion turbines covered that meet 
the applicability criteria of, and that are complying with, the 
SO2 and NOX standards in subparts Ea, Eb, Cd, 
AAAA or BBBB (the municipal solid waste regulations) would be exempt 
from complying with the otherwise applicable SO2 and 
NOX standards in subpart KKKK. The SO2 standards 
in the municipal solid waste rules are more stringent than in subpart 
KKKK, so this proposed amendment would simplify compliance for owner/
operators of petroleum refineries without an increase in pollutant 
emissions.
    Third, we are proposing to exempt owners/operators of stationary 
combustion turbines that are subject to a federally enforceable permit 
limiting fuel to gaseous fuels containing no more than 20 grains of 
sulfur per 100 standard cubic feet (scf) and/or liquid fuels containing 
no more than 0.050 weight percent sulfur (500 ppm sulfur by weight) 
from the SO2 standard. Both of these fuels have potential 
SO2 emissions of less than 0.060 pounds per million British 
thermal units (lb/MMBtu) and would be in compliance with the 
SO2 standard. The proposed amendment would reduce the burden 
for owners/operators burning natural gas and

[[Page 52557]]

distillate oil of complying with subpart KKKK by limiting reporting and 
recordkeeping costs without increasing emissions.
    Fourth, we are proposing to allow owners/operators of stationary 
combustion turbines currently covered by subpart GG and any associated 
steam generating unit subject to an NSPS to have the option to petition 
the Administrator to comply with subpart KKKK in lieu of complying with 
subpart GG and any associated steam generating unit NSPS. Since the 
applicability of subpart KKKK encompasses any associated heat recovery 
equipment, owners/operators would have the flexibility to comply with 
one NSPS instead of multiple NSPS. The Administrator will only grant 
the petition if he/she determines that compliance with subpart KKKK 
would be equivalent to, or more stringent than, compliance with subpart 
GG and any associated steam generating unit NSPS. For example, assuming 
equal amounts of fuel are combusted in the turbine and duct burners 
(HRSG), an existing oil-fired combined cycle combustion turbine subject 
separately to subpart GG and subpart Db of 40 CFR part 60 would have an 
equivalent combined NOX emissions standard of approximately 
65 parts per million (ppm). By contrast, the subpart KKKK 
NOX standard for modified turbines burning fuels other than 
natural gas is 96 ppm. The Administrator would, therefore, deny the 
petition in such circumstances. We have concluded that this is only an 
issue for turbines burning fuels other than natural gas. Also, we are 
clarifying that if any solid fuel as defined in subpart KKKK is burned 
in the HRSG, the HRSG would be covered by the applicable steam 
generating unit NSPS and not subpart KKKK. We are not aware of any 
existing stationary combustion turbines that burn solid fuel in the 
HRSG, but the intent of this proposed rule is to cover only liquid and 
gaseous fuels. The amendment would prevent a large solid fuel-fired 
boiler from using the exhaust from a combustion turbine engine in order 
to avoid the requirements of the applicable steam generating unit NSPS.
    Finally, we are requesting comment on how to address combustion 
turbine engines that are overhauled or refurbished off site in such a 
manner that neither the owner, operator nor manufacturer can identify 
which components have been replaced and, therefore, cannot conduct the 
otherwise required reconstruction analysis. The owner/operator of a 
turbine engine that is overhauled or refurbished in such a manner that 
each individual component of the engine is tracked would still perform 
the traditional reconstruction analysis, i.e., the owner/operator would 
compare the total cost of replacement components with the cost of a 
comparable new turbine engine. In general, a reconstructed facility is 
one which has had components replaced to the extent that the fixed 
capital costs of the new components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed 
capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable entirely 
new facility. (See 40 CFR 60.15.)
    We are requesting comment on two potential approaches for dealing 
with circumstances where there is insufficient information to determine 
which components of a particular combustion turbine engine have been 
replaced. The first approach would base the reconstruction test on 
changes to the combustor alone. (That is, the test would be whether the 
fixed capital cost of the replacement combustor exceeds 50 percent of 
the fixed capital cost that would be required to install a comparable 
new combustor.) The alternate approach would be based on the number of 
times a particular turbine engine has been refurbished. Potential 
language for both approaches is as follows:

    1. An overhauled or refurbished turbine engine where neither the 
owner/operator nor manufacturer can identify which components have 
been replaced shall be considered reconstructed if the combustor 
itself is either replaced or reconstructed (as specified under Sec.  
60.15). When such information is known, an owner or operator of a 
turbine engine that is overhauled or refurbished shall perform a 
reconstruction analysis on the entire turbine engine as described 
under Sec.  60.15.

    The corresponding definition for a combustor would be:

    A combustor means a component or area in a combustion turbine 
engine where fuel is added to the pressurized air molecules and 
combustion takes place. It is also known as a burner or flame can.
    2. An overhauled or refurbished turbine engine where neither the 
owner/operator nor manufacturer can identify which components have 
been replaced during the most recent and previous two refurbishments 
shall be considered reconstructed. When such information is known, 
an owner or operator of a turbine engine that is overhauled or 
refurbished shall perform a reconstruction analysis on the turbine 
engine as described under Sec.  60.15.

    If this provision is adopted, it would provide an owner/operator 
with relative certainty that they could potentially operate a 
combustion turbine for approximately 90,000 hours, or over 10 years of 
continuous operation, before triggering the reconstruction provisions 
in subpart KKKK. (Assuming that turbine exchanges take place at 
approximately 30,000 operating hour intervals.) This approach would 
provide relative regulatory certainty for both the owner/operator of 
the combustion turbine and the turbine manufacturer.
    We are also requesting comment on the frequency of an entire 
combustor replacement. It is our understanding that combustion liners 
and the fuel injection system are replaced at intervals similar to 
major overhauls, but that the combustor need not be replaced in 
entirety. If this is the case, then the ``combustor'' approach could 
inadvertently hinder emissions improvements by providing an incentive 
to replace only the critical components of the combustor instead of 
upgrading the entire combustor. A potential alternative approach would 
be to limit the applicability of the combustor to the combustion liner 
and fuel injection system such that once those components are replaced 
the combustion turbine would be considered reconstructed. Assuming the 
replacement intervals are similar to overhaul intervals, if we adopt 
this approach in the final rule, we would consider two replacements 
prior to triggering reconstruction.
    Finally, we are requesting comment on whether a similar approach 
should be adopted for turbines that are overhauled onsite. It is our 
understanding that larger combustion turbines operating on natural gas 
have overhaul schedules of approximately every 50,000 operating hours. 
Under these assumptions, a combustion turbine could potentially operate 
continuously for over 17 years prior to triggering the amended 
reconstruction provision under subpart KKKK.
    If we adopt reconstruction triggers that differ from the general 
provisions, we intend to maintain the qualification that it is 
technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable 
standards for each combustion turbine that triggers the amended 
reconstruction provisions. Instances where it might not be economically 
feasible would be made on a case-by-case basis by the Administrator. 
Examples of situations where it might not be economically feasible to 
meet the emissions standard include low NOX combustor 
designs being unavailable, turbine designs that are not compatible with 
water or steam injection, or demineralized water or steam required for 
NOX control being unavailable.
    In addition to the above proposed amendments to the applicability 
of Subpart KKKK to new, reconstructed, and modified stationary 
combustion

[[Page 52558]]

turbines, we are proposing to exempt non-major sources subject to this 
NSPS from title V permitting requirements. Under the Clean Air Act 
(CAA) section 502(a), the EPA may exempt non-major sources subject to 
CAA section 111 (NSPS) standards from the requirements of title V if 
the EPA finds that compliance with such requirements is 
``impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome'' on such 
sources. The EPA's finding to support exemption of non-major source 
stationary combustion turbines subject to Subparts GG and KKKK from the 
title V permitting requirements is available in the docket.

B. NOX Emissions Standard

    We are proposing to amend the NOX emissions standard for 
stationary combustion turbines that burn multiple fuels. The existing 
rule bases the applicable NOX standard on the total heat 
input to the stationary combustion turbine, including any associated 
duct burners, and the more stringent standard is only applicable if the 
total heat input is derived from at least 50 percent natural gas. 
However, fuel choice impacts combustion turbine engine NOX 
emissions to a greater degree than it impacts such emissions from a 
duct burner. Therefore, we are proposing that the NOX 
standard be based on the type of fuel being burned in the combustion 
turbine engine alone. The natural gas standard would apply at those 
times when the fuel input to the combustion turbine engine meets the 
definition of natural gas, regardless of the fuel, if any, that is 
burned in the duct burners.
    We are also proposing to add a provision allowing for a site-
specific NOX standard for an owner/operator of a stationary 
combustion turbine that burns by-product fuels. The owner/operator 
would be required to petition the Administrator for a site-specific 
standard using a procedure similar to what is currently required by 
subpart Db of 40 CFR part 60 (the industrial boiler NSPS). We have 
concluded that this is appropriate since subpart KKKK now covers the 
HRSG that was previously covered by subpart Db.
    Since startup and shutdowns are part of the regular operating 
practices of stationary combustion turbines, we are proposing that the 
NOX emissions standard includes startup and shutdown 
emissions. Since periods of startup and shutdown are by definition 
periods of low load, the ``part-load standard'' would apply to all 
hours that contain a startup or shutdown event. Since the ``part-load 
standard'' is based on the emissions rate of a diffusion flame and not 
dry low NOX (DLN) combustion controls, we have concluded 
this standard is appropriate. Through analysis of continuous emission 
monitoring system (CEMS) data, we have determined that including 
periods of startup and shutdown in the standard would not result in 
non-compliance with the standard. We analyzed NOX continuous 
CEMS data from existing large and small turbines without post-
combustion controls to reduce NOX emissions. Even though 
many of these turbines were built prior to the applicability date of 
subpart KKKK, the theoretical compliance rate with a 4-hour rolling 
average including all periods of operation was greater than 99 percent 
for both large and small turbines. We were unable to determine if any 
of the potential excess emissions were a result of either malfunction 
of the NOX CEMS or combustion control equipment, or identify 
all periods when the ``part-load standard'' would apply and the actual 
level of theoretical compliance would be higher. Even though the 
theoretical compliance rate is high when the NOX emissions 
standard is determined directly, we are specifically requesting comment 
on whether to account for startup conditions by considering the first 
30 minutes of operation ``part-load'' such that the part-load emissions 
rate would apply during that time period regardless of the actual load. 
Implementing this option increases the theoretical compliance rate.
    Since we only used performance test data and did not analyze 
NOX CEMS data in the original rulemaking, we are requesting 
comment on whether it is appropriate to extend the averaging time for 
simple cycle turbines to an operating day average. Emissions averages 
would only be determined for operating days with 3 or more hours of 
CEMS data that are not out-of-control. Data from operating days with 
less than 3 hours of CEMS data that are not out-of-control would be 
rolled over to the next operating day until 3 or more hours of data are 
available. Extending the averaging period to an operating daily average 
would increase the theoretical compliance rate. However, since 
combustion turbines using combustion controls tend to have a steady 
emissions profile, we have concluded that this approach would not 
result in an increase in emissions, and could lower compliance burden 
by reducing the reporting burden. An additional benefit of this 
approach is that all non out-of-control emissions data would be used in 
determining excess emissions. Under the current approach, any 4 
operating hours with more than 1 hour of monitor downtime is reported 
as monitor downtime and the emissions from the remaining hours are 
excluded. We are not proposing a longer averaging period for a simple 
cycle turbine. If we were to use a longer averaging period for simple 
cycle turbines or determine compliance during startup, shutdown and 
part-load periods separately from full-load periods, the NOX 
standards would be re-evaluated to determine appropriate standards. 
Furthermore, we are proposing to add a lb/MMBtu NOX option 
that is equivalent to the ppm standard. This option would simplify 
compliance for some sources while providing the same level of 
environmental protection. Fourth, based on analysis of the CEMS data, 
we are proposing to change the classification of large/small for 
turbines operating at part-load. The existing rule divides large/small 
turbines operating at part-load based on the rated output of the 
turbine (i.e., turbines with outputs greater than 30 megawatts (MW) are 
considered large). This proposed amendment would divide large/small 
turbines operating at part-load based on the rated heat input (i.e., 
turbines with base load heat inputs greater 340 MMBtu per hour (MMBtu/
h) would be considered large). A heat input rating of 340 MMBtu/h is 
approximately equivalent to an output rating of 30 MW, and this 
amendment would simplify compliance by making the measurement method 
for determination the large/small part-load subcategory consistent with 
how the other subcategories are determined. A detailed discussion of 
the NOX CEMS data for both large and small turbines is 
available in the docket.
    We have concluded that the net power supplied to the end user is a 
better indication of environmental performance than gross output from 
the power producer. Therefore, we intend to amend the optional output-
based standard from gross to net output in the final rule. Net output 
is the combination of the gross electrical (or mechanical) output of 
the turbine engine and any output generated by the HRSG minus the 
parasitic power requirements. A parasitic load for a stationary 
combustion turbine is any of the loads or devices powered by 
electricity, steam, hot water or directly by the gross output of the 
stationary combustion turbine that does not contribute electrical, 
mechanical or thermal output. One reason for this amendment is that 
while combustion turbine engines that require high fuel gas feed 
pressures typically have higher gross

[[Page 52559]]

efficiencies, they also often require fuel compressors that have 
potentially larger parasitic loads than combustion turbine engines that 
require lower fuel gas pressures. We have concluded that primary 
parasitic loads include the fuel compressor, pump, or heater, fans, 
inlet air cooling systems, control systems and post combustion 
controls. We are requesting comment on any additional loads that should 
be considered. To account for the parasitic loads, we intend to lower 
the efficiency assumptions used to generate the output-based standards. 
We have concluded that a 2.5 percent difference in efficiency is 
appropriate, but are requesting comment on the issue. As an alternative 
to continuously monitoring parasitic loads, we have concluded that 
estimating parasitic loads is adequate and would minimize compliance 
costs. A calibration would be required to determine the parasitic loads 
at four load points (< 25 percent load, 25-50 percent load, 50-75 
percent load, and >75 percent load). Once the parasitic load curve is 
determined, the appropriate amount would be subtracted from the gross 
output to determine net output. We are requesting comment on this 
approach and whether a four-load test is appropriate or if a curve fit 
of three loads greater than 25 percent load is sufficient.
    In addition, we are proposing to recognize the environmental 
benefit of electricity generated by CHP facilities to account for the 
benefit of on-site generation avoiding losses from the transmissions 
and distribution of the electricity. Actual line losses vary from 
location to location, but we are proposing a benefit of five percent 
avoided transmission and distribution losses when determining the 
electric output for CHP facilities. To avoid CHP facilities only 
providing a trivial amount of thermal energy from qualifying for the 
transmission and distribution benefit, we are proposing to restrict the 
5 percent benefit to CHP facilities where at least 20 percent of the 
annual output is useful thermal output.
    Finally, we are requesting comment on limiting the use of the 30-
day average. The existing rule provides a 30-day averaging period for 
owners/operators of combined cycle and CHP turbines regardless of if 
they elect to comply with the input or output-based standard. However, 
based on the review of CEMS data, NOX emissions from 
stationary combustion turbines are relatively stable in terms of ppm or 
lb/MMBtu and a 30-day averaging time for combined cycle and CHP 
facilities is not necessary. Owner/operators of any stationary 
combustion turbine (including combined cycle and CHP turbines) electing 
to comply with either of the input-based standards (ppm or lb/MMBtu) 
would be required to use the 4-hour (or daily) averaging period. The 
existing rule does not provide owner/operators of simple cycle turbines 
the option to demonstrate compliance using a 30-day average. We have 
concluded that few owner/operators of simple cycle turbines would elect 
to demonstrate compliance with the output-based standard, but as 
technology develops this might change in the future. Therefore, since 
output is the only relevant characteristic that varies significantly 
over short periods and a longer averaging period is necessary to 
account for periods of lower efficiency, we are requesting comment on 
using the 30-day averaging period for owner/operators of any stationary 
combustion turbine electing to demonstrate compliance with the output-
based standard. Owner/operators of all stationary combustion turbines 
electing to demonstrate compliance with either the ppm or lb/MMBtu 
standards would use a 4-hour (or daily) averaging period.

C. SO2 Emissions Standard

    We are proposing to amend the rule language to clarify the intent 
of the rule in that if a source elects to perform fuel analysis to 
demonstrate compliance with the SO2 standard, the initial 
test must measure all sulfur compounds (e.g. hydrogen sulfide, dimethyl 
sulfide, carbonyl sulfide and thiol compounds). Alternate test 
procedures can be used only if the measured sulfur content is less than 
half of the applicable standard. In addition, we are proposing to allow 
fuel blending to achieve the applicable SO2 standard. Under 
the proposed language, an owner/operator of an affected facility would 
be able to burn higher sulfur fuels as long as the average fuel fired 
meets the applicable SO2 standard at all times. Finally, the 
primary method of controlling SO2 emissions is through 
selecting fuels containing low amounts of sulfur or through fuel 
pretreatment operations that can operate at all times. We are proposing 
that the SO2 standard apply during periods of startup and 
shutdown.
    In recognition that ultra-low sulfur diesel is available for 
transportation purposes in Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and 
the Virgin Islands, we are removing these areas from the definition of 
noncontinental area. The only difference for owners/operators of 
affected stationary combustion turbines located in noncontinental areas 
is the ability to burn higher sulfur fuels. We have concluded that 
since these areas have low sulfur diesel oil available it is not 
appropriate to include these locations in the noncontinental area 
definition. This amendment would still allow the use of higher sulfur 
fuels in Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and 
offshore platforms where lower sulfur fuels are not necessarily as 
readily accessible.
    For stationary combustion turbines combusting 50 percent or more 
biogas (based on total heat input) per calendar month, the existing 
Subpart KKKK establishes a maximum allowable SO2 emissions 
standard of 65 nanograms (ng) SO2 per joule (/J) (0.15 lb 
SO2/MMBtu) heat input. This standard was set to avoid 
discouraging the development of energy recovery projects, which burn 
landfill gases to generate electricity in stationary combustion 
turbines (see 74 FR 11858, March 20, 2009). New stationary combustion 
technologies using other low-Btu gases are becoming commercially 
available. These technologies can burn low-Btu content gases recovered 
from steelmaking (e.g., blast furnace gas and coke oven gas), coal bed 
methane, closed landfills, etc. Similar to biogas, substantial 
environmental benefits can be achieved by using these low-Btu gases to 
generate electricity instead of flaring or direct venting to the 
atmosphere, as is now common practice. Therefore, we are proposing to 
expand the application of the existing 65 ng SO2/J (0.15 lb 
SO2/MMBtu) heat input emissions standard to include 
stationary combustion turbines combusting 50 percent or more (on a heat 
input basis) of any gaseous fuels that have heating values less than 26 
megajoules per standard cubic meter (700 Btu per scf) per calendar 
month.
    To account for the environmental benefit of productive use and 
simplify compliance for low-Btu gases, we have concluded that it is 
appropriate to base the SO2 standard on a fuel concentration 
basis as an alternative to a lb/MMBtu basis. The original subpart KKKK 
2005 proposal (70 FR 8314) SO2 standard was based on the 
sulfur content in distillate oil and included a sulfur standard of 0.05 
percent by weight (500 ppm by weight (ppmw)). However, since we are 
proposing to exempt liquid fuels containing less than 0.050 weight 
percent sulfur from the SO2 standard, we are proposing an 
alternate standard of 500 ppm by volume (ppmv). In general, emission 
standards are applied to a gaseous mixture are by volume (ppmv), not by 
weight (ppmw). Basing the standard on a volume basis would simplify 
compliance and minimize burden to the regulated community. Therefore, 
we are proposing a fuel

[[Page 52560]]

specification standard of 650 milligrams per standard cubic meter (28 
gr/100 scf) for low-Btu gases. This is approximately equivalent to a 
standard of 500 ppmv, and is in the units directly reported by most 
test methods.

D. Malfunction Affirmative Defense

    The EPA has proposed standards in this proposed rule that apply at 
all times and is proposing to add an affirmative defense to civil 
penalties that are caused by malfunctions. The EPA's finding to support 
the malfunction affirmative defense is available in the docket.

E. Electronic Data Submittal

    The EPA is proposing that owners/operators of stationary combustion 
turbines submit electronic copies of required performance test reports 
to the EPA's WebFIRE database. The EPA's finding to support this 
requirement is available in the docket.

F. Additional Proposed Amendments

    We are also proposing several additional amendments. First, we have 
concluded that it is not appropriate to require an affected facility 
that is not currently in operation to startup to demonstrate compliance 
with the NSPS. Commencing operation strictly for the purposes of 
demonstrating compliance is an unnecessary cost and increases 
emissions. Therefore, we are proposing to exempt units that are out of 
operation at the time of the required performance test from conducting 
the required performance test until 45 days after the facility is 
brought back into operation.
    Similarly, owner/operators of a combustion turbine that has 
operated 50 hours or less since the previous performance test was 
required to be conducted can request an extension of the otherwise 
required performance test from the appropriate EPA Regional Office 
until the turbine has operated over 50 hours. This provision is fuel 
specific and an owner/operator permitted to burn a backup fuel, but 
that rarely does so, can request an extension on testing on that 
particular fuel until it has been burned for over 50 hours.
    In addition, for similar, separate affected facilities using 
identical control equipment, the Administrator or delegated authority 
may authorize a single emissions test as adequate demonstration for up 
to four other similar, separate affected facilities as long as: (1) The 
most recent performance test for each affected facility shows that 
performance of each affected facility is 75 percent or less of the 
applicable emissions standard; (2) the manufacturer's recommended 
maintenance procedures for each control device are followed; and (3) 
each affected facility conducts a performance test for each pollutant 
for which they are subject to a standard at least once every five 
years. DLN combustion controls are the primary method for compliance 
with the NSPS requirements and result in relatively stable emission 
rates. Furthermore, the DLN combustor is a fundamental part of a 
combustion turbine and as long as similar maintenance procedures are 
followed we have concluded that emission rates will likely be 
comparable between similar combustion turbines. Therefore, the 
additional compliance costs associated with testing each affected 
turbine would not result in significant emissions reductions.
    Additionally, turbine engine performance can deteriorate with 
operation and age and operational parameters need to be verified 
periodically to assure proper operation of emission controls. 
Therefore, we are proposing to require facilities using the water or 
steam to fuel ratio as a demonstration of continuous compliance with 
the NOX emissions standard to verify the appropriate ratio 
or parameters at a minimum of every 60 months. We have concluded this 
would not add significant burden since the majority of affected 
facilities are already required to conduct performance testing at least 
every five years through title V requirements or other state permitting 
requirements.
    The existing rule does not state how multiple combustion turbine 
engines that are exhausted through a single HRSG would demonstrate 
compliance with the NOX standard. Therefore, we are 
proposing procedures for demonstrating compliance when multiple 
combustion turbine engines are exhausted through a single HRSG and when 
steam from multiple combustion turbine HRSGs is used in a single steam 
turbine. Furthermore, the existing rule requires approval from the 
permitting authority for any use of the part 75 NOX 
monitoring provisions in lieu of the specified part 60 procedures, but 
we concluded that approval is an unnecessary burden for facilities only 
using combustion controls. Therefore, we are proposing to allow sources 
using only combustion controls to use the parametric NOX 
monitoring in part 75 to demonstrate continuous compliance without 
requiring prior approval. However, if the source is using post 
combustion control technology to comply with the requirements of the 
NSPS, then approval from the permitting authority is required prior to 
using the part 75 CEMS calibration procedures in place of the part 60 
procedures.
    Finally, for turbine engines replaced with an identical overhauled 
engine as part of an exchange program, we are proposing that the new 
turbine undergo a new performance test to verify proper operation, for 
owner/operators using water or steam to fuel ratio to verify the proper 
ratio, and for owner/operators using parametric monitoring to verify 
that the operating parameters are still valid.

G. Additional Request for Comments

    Affected Facility. We are considering and requesting comment on 
amending the definition of the affected facility for systems with 
multiple combustion turbine engines. Specifically, we are requesting 
comment on treating multiple combustion turbine engines connected to a 
single generator, separate combustion turbines engines using a single 
HRSG and separate combustion turbine engines with separate HRSG that 
use a single steam turbine or otherwise combine the useful thermal 
output as single affected facilities. This approach would reduce burden 
to the regulated community by simplifying monitoring. We are also 
requesting comment on how the applicable emission standards would be 
determined and on how ``new'' and ``reconstruction'' would be defined. 
We are specifically requesting comment on basing the emission standards 
on either the base load rating of the largest single combustion turbine 
engine or the combined base load ratings of the combustion turbine 
engines. For an affected facility with multiple combustion turbine 
engines, we are requesting comment on considering the entire facility 
``new'' or ``reconstructed'' if any combustion turbine engine is 
replaced with a new combustion turbine engine or reconstructed.
    District Energy. We are considering and requesting comment on an 
appropriate method to recognize the environmental benefit of district 
energy systems. The steam or hot water distribution system of a 
district energy system located in urban areas, college and university 
campuses, hospitals, airports and military installations eliminates the 
need for multiple, smaller boilers at individual buildings. A central 
facility typically has superior emission controls and consists of a few 
larger boilers facilitating more efficient operation than numerous 
separate smaller individual boilers. However, when the hot water or 
steam is distributed, approximately two to three percent of the thermal 
energy in the water and six to nine percent of the

[[Page 52561]]

thermal energy in the steam is lost, reducing the net efficiency 
advantage. We are requesting comment on whether it is appropriate to 
divide the thermal output from district energy systems by a factor 
(i.e., 0.95 or 0.90) that would account for the net efficiency benefits 
of district energy systems. This approach would be similar to the 
proposed approach to how the electric output for CHP is considered when 
determining regulatory compliance. We request that comments include 
technical analysis of the net benefits in support of any conclusions.
    Jet Fuel. We realize that jet fuel is an available fuel for 
combustion turbines and are requesting comment on adding jet fuel to 
the definition of distillate oil. In the event we include jet fuel in 
the definition of distillate oil, we are also requesting the 
appropriate test method (i.e., ASTM method) that should be used to 
identify jet fuel.
    Low-Btu Gases. We are considering and requesting comment on 
amending subpart KKKK to specifically exempt from the SO2 
emission standards stationary combustion turbines combusting over 50 
percent or more per calendar month low-Btu gases. Since these by-
product gases are a recovered waste that would otherwise be flared or 
vented rather than a newly supplied fossil fuel such as natural gas or 
fuel oil, the combusting of the low-Btu gases in a stationary 
combustion turbine to generate electricity does not increase 
SO2 emissions to the atmosphere. Such an exemption would 
encourage the environmentally beneficial use of low-Btu by-product 
gases, and would reduce the burden to the owners/operators of these 
affected facilities by eliminating the need to demonstrate compliance 
with an SO2 emissions standard. When the emissions 
associated with the displaced electric and useful thermal output are 
accounted for, there is a net reduction in emissions to the atmosphere.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is, 
therefore, not subject to review under the Executive Orders 12866 and 
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
The amended reconstruction provisions would not significantly impact 
owners/operators of stationary combustion turbines within the next 5 
years, and the other proposed amendments result in no changes to the 
information collection requirements of the existing standards of 
performance and would have no impact on the information collection 
estimate of projected cost and hour burden made and approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during the development of the 
existing standards of performance. Therefore, the information 
collection requests have not been amended. However, OMB previously 
approved the information collection requirements contained in the 
existing regulations (40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK) under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and 
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0582. The OMB control numbers for 
the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, 
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed amendments on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (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.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The required 
emissions control technology and other requirements have not been 
significantly changed. In determining whether a rule has a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact 
of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small 
entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility 
analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives ``which 
minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small 
entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or 
otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities 
subject to the rule.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless 
has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. The 
proposed amendments would allow flexibility in the timing of 
performance testing of idle turbines and fuel blending to achieve the 
SO2 standards.
    We therefore concluded that today's proposed rule would relieve 
regulatory burden for all affected small entities.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the 
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related 
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This proposed rule does not contain a federal mandate that may 
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. Since the best system of emissions reduction is unchanged and 
there are only minor proposed amendments to the performance testing, 
recordkeeping, monitoring and reporting requirements, the proposed 
amendments would not significantly impact the regulatory burden of this 
rule. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
    This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of 
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The proposed 
amendments would reduce the overall regulatory requirements of the 
rule.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

[[Page 52562]]

levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This 
proposed rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on 
state or local governments; it will not preempt state law. Thus, 
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA 
policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local 
governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed 
rule from State and local officials.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The EPA is not 
aware of any stationary combustion turbine owned by an Indian tribe. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
    The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed 
action from tribal officials.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or 
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based 
solely on technology performance. The proposal is not expected to 
produce notable changes in criteria pollutant emissions or other 
pollutants but does encourage the current trend towards cleaner 
generation, helping to protect air quality and children's health. The 
agency recognizes that children are among the groups most vulnerable to 
climate change impacts and the public is invited to submit comments or 
identify peer reviewed studies relevant to this proposal based solely 
on technology.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28355, 
May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA 
directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the 
agency decides not use available and applicable VCS.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve any new technical 
standards. Therefore, the EPA did not consider the use of any VCS.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practical and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it 
increases the level of environmental protection for all affected 
populations without having any disproportionately high adverse human 
health or environmental effects on any populations, including any 
minority, low-income or indigenous populations. This proposed rule 
would assure that all new stationary combustion turbines install 
appropriate controls to minimize health impacts to nearby populations.
    To gain a better understanding of the sourc