    	6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR-2003-0196; FRL-            ]

RIN:2060-AK73

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants   

for Stationary Combustion Turbines

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:	On August 29, 2003, EPA promulgated a final National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for stationary combustion
turbines, which will be codified at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart YYYY.  As
part of that standard, EPA established eight subcategories of stationary
combustion turbines.  Elsewhere in today’s FEDERAL REGISTER, EPA is
publishing a proposed rule to delete four of these subcategories from
the source category list required by section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA).  EPA has made an initial determination that these
subcategories satisfy the criteria for deletion from the source category
list established by CAA section 112(c)(9)(B).

In this companion action, EPA is proposing to stay the effectiveness of
the combustion turbines NESHAP for new sources in the lean premix
gas-fired turbines and diffusion flame gas-fired turbines subcategories,
which are the two principal subcategories we are proposing to delist. 
This action is necessary to avoid wasteful and unwarranted expenditures
on installation of emission controls which will not be required if these
subcategories are delisted.

DATES:  Comments.  Written comments on the proposed rule must be
received by EPA no later than [INSERT DATE 45 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION OF
THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

Public Hearing.  A public hearing regarding the proposed rule will be
held if requests to speak are received by the EPA on or before [INSERT
DATE 7 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].  If requested, a public hearing will be held on [INSERT DATE
14 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].


ADDRESSES:  Comments.  Comments may be submitted electronically, by
mail, or through hand delivery/courier.  Electronic comments may be
submitted on-line at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/.  Written comments sent
by U.S. mail should be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (Mail Code 6102T), Attention
Docket Number OAR-2003-0196, Room B108, U.S. EPA, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.  Written comments delivered in person
or by courier (e.g., FedEx, Airborne, and UPS) should be submitted (in
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center (Mail Code 6102T), Attention Docket Number OAR-2003-0196, Room
B102, U.S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. 
The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person
listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearing.  If a public hearing is requested by [INSERT DATE 7 DAYS
FROM PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the
public hearing will be held in our EPA Office of Administration
Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC on [INSERT DATE 14 DAYS FROM
PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  Persons
interested in presenting oral testimony should contact Ms. Kelly A.
Rimer, Risk and Exposure Assessment Group, Emission Standards Division
(C404-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number (919) 541-2962.  Persons interested in attending the
public hearing should also contact Ms. Rimer to verify the time of the
hearing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ms. Kelly A. Rimer, Risk and Exposure
Assessment Group, Emission Standards Division (C404-01), U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2962,
electronic mail address rimer.kelly@epa.gov.

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

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

  Category      SIC   NAICS          Examples of

                                  regulated entities

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

Any industry	4911  2211	Electric power generation, using a					 
transmission, or          stationary				  distribution

combustion	4922  486210	Natural gas transmission

turbine as	1311	 211111	Crude petroleum and natural defined   				  gas
production

in the		1321  211112	Natural gas liquids producers

regulation.	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 §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 Number OAR-2003-0196.  The official public docket
is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at
the EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), EPA West, Room B-108, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004.  The Docket Center 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 Docket is (202) 566-1742.

Electronic Access.  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
submit or view public comments, access the index of the contents of the
official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket
that are available electronically.  Once in the system, select "search"
and key in the appropriate docket identification number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA dockets. 
Information claimed as confidential business information (CBI) and other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not
included in the official public docket, will not be available for public
viewing in EPA’s electronic public docket.  The EPA’s policy is that
copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA’s electronic public
docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official
public docket.  Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA’s policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will
be made available for public viewing in EPA’s electronic public docket
as EPA receives them and without change unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.  When EPA identifies a comment containing
copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in
the version of the comment that is placed in EPA’s electronic public
docket.  The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material,
will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered
to the docket will be transferred to EPA’s electronic public docket. 
Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be
scanned and placed in EPA’s electronic public docket.  Where
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph
will be placed in EPA’s electronic public docket along with a brief
description written by the docket staff.

Comments.  You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by
facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier.  To ensure proper receipt
by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the
subject line on the first page of your comment.  Please ensure that your
comments are submitted within the specified comment period.  Comments
submitted after the close of the comment period will be marked
“late”.  The EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

Electronically.  If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed
below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and
an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your
comment.  Also include this contact information on the outside of any
disk or CD ROM you submit and in any cover letter accompanying the disk
or CD ROM.  This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of
the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on
the substance of your comment.  The EPA’s policy is that EPA will not
edit your comment and any identifying or contact information provided in
the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is
placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA’s
electronic public docket.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may
not be able to consider your comment.

Your use of EPA’s electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA’s preferred method for receiving comments.  Go
directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.  Once in the system, select
“search” and key in Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0196.  The system is an
“anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your
identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.

Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to 

a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0196.  In
contrast to EPA’s electronic public docket, EPA’s e-mail system is
not an “anonymous access” system.  If you send an e-mail comment
directly to the docket without going through EPA’s electronic public
docket, EPA’s e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail
address.  E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA’s
e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the
official public docket and made available in EPA’s electronic public
docket.

You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing
address identified in this document.   These electronic submissions will
be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format.  Avoid the use of
special characters and any form of encryption.

By Mail.  Send your comments (in duplicate, if possible) to:  EPA Docket
Center (Air Docket), U.S. EPA West, (MD-6102T), Room B-108, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No.
OAR-2003-0196.

By Hand Delivery or Courier.  Deliver your comments (in duplicate, if
possible) to:  EPA Docket Center, Room B-108, U.S. EPA West, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No.
OAR-2003-0196.  Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket
Center’s normal hours of operation.

By Facsimile.  Fax your comments to: (202) 566-1741, Docket ID No.
OAR-2003-0196.

CBI.  Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI through
EPA’s electronic public docket or by e-mail.  Send or deliver
information identified as CBI only to the following address: Kelly
Rimer, c/o Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02),
U.S. EPA, 109 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709,
Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0196.  You may claim information that
you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information
as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, 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 CBI).  Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.

Worldwide Web (WWW).  In addition to being available in the docket, an
electronic copy of today’s proposed rule will also be available on the
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN).  Following the
Administrator’s signature, a copy of the proposed rule will be placed
on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.  The TTN provides
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution
control.  If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN
HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

Applicable Law  Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(V), the Administrator
has determined that it is appropriate to conduct this rulemaking
according to the procedures established by CAA section 307(d).

I. Description of the Proposed Action

Elsewhere in today’s issue of the FEDERAL REGISTER,  EPA is proposing
a rule to amend the list of categories of sources that was developed
pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(1).  EPA is proposing to delete four
subcategories from the Combustion Turbine Source Category.  A final MACT
standard creating these subcategories was promulgated on August 29,
2003.  This standard will be published soon and will be codified at 40
CFR Part 63, Subpart YYYY.  These subcategories are (1) lean premix
gas-fired stationary combustion turbines as defined in 40 CFR §63.6175
(also referred to herein as “lean premix gas-fired turbines”), (2)
diffusion flame gas-fired stationary combustion turbines as defined in
40 CFR §63.6175 (also referred to herein as “diffusion flame
gas-fired turbines”), (3) emergency stationary combustion turbines as
defined in 40 CFR §63.6175, and 4) stationary combustion turbines
located on the North Slope of Alaska, as defined in 40 CFR §63.6175.

This proposed rule to amend the source category list  is being issued in
part to respond to a petition submitted by the Gas Turbine Association
(GTA) and in part upon the Administrator’s own motion.  Petitions to
remove a source category from the source category list are permitted
under section 112(c)(9) of the CAA.  The proposed rule to delete these
four subcategories is based on an initial determination by EPA that
these subcategories satisfy the substantive criteria for deletion set
forth in CAA section 112(c)(9)(B).  The proposed rule to delete these
subcategories that appears elsewhere in today’s FEDERAL REGISTER
contains a detailed description of the technical basis for this initial
determination.

Although EPA is proposing to delete from the source category list four
subcategories established by the final MACT standard for stationary
combustion turbines, CAA section 112(d)(10) provides that the standard
for those subcategories will take effect upon publication of the
standard.  All turbines in the lean premix gas-fired turbines and the
diffusion flame gas-fired turbines subcategories which were constructed
or reconstructed after January 14, 2003, will then be required to comply
immediately with the emission standard for new sources.  This may cause
some sources in these two subcategories to make immediate expenditures
on installation and testing of emission controls, even though such
controls will not be required if we adopt a final rule to delete these
subcategories.  In view of our initial determination that the statutory
criteria for delisting have been met for all sources in these
subcategories, we consider it inappropriate and contrary to statutory
intent to mandate such expenditures until after a final determination
has been made whether or not these subcategories should be delisted. 
Such expenditures would be wasteful and unwarranted if we take final
action to delist these subcategories.  Moreover, if we take final action
to delist these subcategories, sources constructed or reconstructed
while the rulemaking to delist is pending would bear a regulatory burden
not placed on identical sources constructed or reconstructed thereafter.
 Accordingly, we are proposing this rule to stay the effectiveness of
the emission standard for new sources for the lean premix gas-fired
turbines and diffusion flame gas-fired turbines subcategories during the
pendency of the rulemaking to delete these subcategories.

We are mindful that there would be no need to stay the effectiveness of
the standard for new sources in these two subcategories if a rulemaking
to delist the affected sources had been completed before promulgation of
the final MACT standard for combustion turbines.  However, we note that
the GTA petition was not submitted until quite late in the regulatory
process.  Moreover, we generally do not make a definite determination
concerning the characteristics of subcategories until promulgation of a
final MACT standard.  

In these circumstances, we do not believe it would be fair to make
certain affected sources bear the burden of a delay in our determination
that a subcategory meets the statutory criteria for delisting.

This proposed stay is consistent with the precedents we have
established in similar circumstances in the past.  In 1991, we issued a
final rule staying the effectiveness of the National Emission Standard
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for radionuclides, 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart
I, for commercial nuclear power reactors during the pendency of another
rulemaking to rescind the standard for these facilities (56 FR, 37158
August 5, 1991).  The rescission was authorized by section 112(d)(9) of
the CAA (the “Simpson amendment”), which provides that we may
decline to regulate Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensees under
CAA section 112 if the Administrator determines that the regulatory
program established by the NRC for a category or subcategory provides an
ample margin of safety to protect the public health.  We had made an
initial determination that the NRC program for commercial nuclear power
reactors met this test, and we reasoned that “it would frustrate the
evident purpose of Section 112(d)(9) if EPA were to permit Subpart I to
take effect for this subcategory during the pendency of the rulemaking
on rescission” (56 FR 37159).  This final rule was not challenged.

In 1995, we acted to provide another type of interim relief during a
delisting rulemaking.  We suspended the listing of caprolactam, during a
rulemaking to delete  caprolactam from the list of hazardous air
pollutants established by CAA section 112(b)(1), for purposes of
determining the applicability of Title V permitting requirements (60 FR
081, September 18, 1995).  We based that action on our determination
that “retention, during the rulemaking to delist caprolactam, of
permit application requirements which will no longer exist after the
delisting process has been completed would result in unnecessary private
and public expenditures on preparation, submission, and processing of
such applications, and would yield no environmental benefits” (60 FR
084-85).  This interim relief also was not challenged.

We are proposing to stay the effectiveness of the combustion turbines
emission standard for new sources in the lean premix gas-fired turbines
and the diffusion flame gas-fired turbines subcategories, but only
during the pendency of the rulemaking to delist these subcategories.  It
is not our intention by staying the effectiveness of the standard to
change the definition of new sources within these subcategories, or to
alter the status of any individual source.  If these subcategories are
not ultimately delisted, the stay will be lifted, and all sources in
these subcategories constructed or reconstructed after January 14, 2003
will then be subject to the standard.  These sources will then be given
the same time to make the requisite demonstration of compliance they
would have had if there had been no stay.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.  Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must
determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review 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
adverse affect in a material way the economy, a sector to 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, it has been determined
that the proposed action does not constitute a “significant regulatory
action” and is, therefore, not subject to OMB review.

B.  Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.  The
proposed action will stay the effectiveness of the combustion turbines
NESHAP for new sources in the lean premix gas-fired turbines and
diffusion flame gas-fired turbines subcategories until a conclusion is
reached regarding deletion and therefore eliminate the need for
information collection toward regulatory compliance under the CAA. 
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 are
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.	

C.  Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

The RFA 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 business, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.  For the purposes of assessing the impacts
of today’s proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined
as:  (1) a small business that meets the definitions for small business
based on the Small Business Association (SBA) size standards which, for
this proposed action, can include manufacturing (NAICS 3999-03) and air
transportation (NAICS 4522-98 and 4512-98) operations that employ less
1,000 people and engineering services (NAICS 8711-98) operations that
earn less than $20 million annually; (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 impact of today’s proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
In determining whether a rule has 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 analysis is to identify and
address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed 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.  The
proposed rule will stay the effectiveness of the combustion turbines
NESHAP for new sources in the lean premix gas-fired turbines and
diffusion flame gas-fired turbines subcategories.  This will stay the
requirements to apply controls and will also stay associated operating,
monitoring and reporting requirements.  These burdens will be
permanently lifted if EPA ultimately removes the four source categories
from the stationary combustion turbine source category, and temporarily
lifted if EPA does not ultimately delist the subcategories.  We have,
therefore, concluded that today’s proposed rule will relieve
regulatory burden for all 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

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law
1044, 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, EPA
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 an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA 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 EPA 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 EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan.  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 EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.

Today’s proposed rule contains no Federal mandates for State, local,
or tribal governments or the private sector.  The proposed rule imposes
no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the
private sector.  In any event, EPA has determined that the 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 one year.  Thus, today’s
proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205
of the UMRA.	

E.  Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA 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” is 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.”

Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation.  The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.

Today’s action proposes to stay the effectiveness of the combustion
turbines NESHAP for new sources in the lean premix gas-fired turbines
and diffusion flame gas-fired turbines subcategories.  It does not
impose any additional requirements on the States and does not affect the
balance of power between the States and the Federal government.  Thus,
the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to the
proposed rule.

F.  Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that
have tribal implications.”  The proposed rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175.  The proposed
action will stay the effectiveness of the combustion turbines NESHAP for
new sources in the lean premix gas-fired turbines and diffusion flame
gas-fired turbines subcategories.  Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to the proposed 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 EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children.  If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency 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 considered by the Agency.

The EPA interprets 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 proposed rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as
defined in Executive Order 12866, and because this action is not based
on health or safety risks.  Thus, Executive Order 13045 does not apply
to this rule.

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

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001), requires EPA to prepare  and submit a Statement of
Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for certain actions
identified as “significant energy actions.”  The proposed rule is
not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.

I.  National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

Section 112(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) 915 U.S.C. 272
note), directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
instead of government-unique standards in their regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.  Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., material specifications, test method, sampling and analytical
procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by
one or more voluntary consensus standards bodies.  Examples of
organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies
include the American society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE).  The NTTAA requires Federal agencies like
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations when an agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.  The proposed rule does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

______________________

Dated:

______________________

Administrator.

 PAGE  1 

 PAGE  27 

