thefederalregister.com

Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government

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: *http://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 athttp://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. Thehttp://www.regulations.govWeb 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 athttp://www.epa.gov/dockets/.

Docket:All documents in the docket are listed in thehttp://www.regulations.govindex. 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 inhttp://www.regulations.govor 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:

Category NAICS1 Examples of regulated 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. 1North 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 §§ 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 precedingFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTsection.

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 athttp://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. NOXEmissions Standard C. SO2Emissions 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 SO2standard in, either subpart J or Ja (standards of performance for petroleum refineries) would be exempt from complying with the otherwise applicable SO2standard in subpart KKKK. In addition, owners/operators of stationary combustion turbines covered that meet the applicability criteria of, and that are complying with the SO2and NOXstandards in subparts Ea, Eb, Cd, AAAA or BBBB (the municipal solid waste regulations) would be exempt from complying with the otherwise applicable SO2and NOXstandards 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,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 NOXnatural gas-fired duct burners contribute between 15 to 25 parts per million (ppm) NOXcorrected to 15 percent oxygen (O2) and ultra low NOXduct burners are available that only contribute approximately 3 ppm NOXcorrected 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 NOXemission standards for turbine engines that are identical to those in Table 1 of subpart KKKK. The subpart GG SO2emission 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 SO2standard in either subparts J or Ja of 40 CFR part 60 (Standards of performance for petroleum refineries) from complying with the otherwise applicable SO2standard in subpart KKKK. The SO2standard 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 SO2and NOXstandards in subparts Ea, Eb, Cd, AAAA or BBBB (the municipal solid waste regulations) would be exempt from complying with the otherwise applicable SO2and NOXstandards in subpart KKKK. The SO2standards 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 SO2standard. Both of these fuels have potential SO2emissions of less than 0.060 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) and would be in compliance with the SO2standard. The proposed amendment would reduce the burden for owners/operators burning natural gas anddistillate 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 NOXemissions standard of approximately 65 parts per million (ppm). By contrast, the subpart KKKK NOXstandard 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 NOXcombustor designs being unavailable, turbine designs that are not compatible with water or steam injection, or demineralized water or steam required for NOXcontrol being unavailable.

In addition to the above proposed amendments to the applicability of Subpart KKKK to new, reconstructed, and modified stationary combustionturbines, 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. NOXEmissions Standard

We are proposing to amend the NOXemissions standard for stationary combustion turbines that burn multiple fuels. The existing rule bases the applicable NOXstandard 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 NOXemissions to a greater degree than it impacts such emissions from a duct burner. Therefore, we are proposing that the NOXstandard 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 NOXstandard 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 NOXemissions 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 NOXcontinuous CEMS data from existing large and small turbines without post-combustion controls to reduce NOXemissions. 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 NOXCEMS 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 NOXemissions 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 NOXCEMS 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 NOXstandards would be re-evaluated to determine appropriate standards. Furthermore, we are proposing to add a lb/MMBtu NOXoption 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 NOXCEMS 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 grossefficiencies, 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, NOXemissions 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.SO 2Emissions 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 SO2standard, 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 SO2standard. 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 SO2standard at all times. Finally, the primary method of controlling SO2emissions 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 SO2standard 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 SO2emissions standard of 65 nanograms (ng) SO2per 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 SO2standard on a fuel concentration basis as an alternative to a lb/MMBtu basis. The original subpart KKKK 2005 proposal (70 FR 8314) SO2standard 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 SO2standard, 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 fuelspecification 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 NOXemissions 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 NOXstandard. 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 NOXmonitoring 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 NOXmonitoring 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 thethermal 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 SO2emission 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 SO2emissions 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 SO2emissions 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 SO2standards.

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 variouslevels 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 source category and near source populations, the EPA conducted a demographic analysis on recent installations of combustion turbines selling >25 MW of power to identify any overrepresentation of minority, low income, or indigenous populations. This analysis only gives some indication of the prevalence of sub-populations that may be exposed to air pollution from the sources; it does not identify the demographic characteristics of the most highly affected individuals or communities, nor does it quantify the level of risk faced by those individuals or communities. The demographic analysis results and the details concerning their development are presented in the April 20, 2012, memorandum titled,Environmental Justice Review,a copy of which is available in the docket.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

Dated: June 22, 2012. Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 60, of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 60—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

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

Subpart A—[AMENDED]

2. Section 60.17 is amended:

a. By revising paragraph (a)(9);

b. By revising paragraph (a)(16);

c. By revising paragraph (a)(18);

d. By revising paragraph (a)(22);

e. By revising paragraph (a)(25);

f. By revising paragraph (a)(40);

g. By revising paragraph (a)(50);

h. By revising paragraph (a)(57);

i. By revising paragraph (a)(59);

j. By revising paragraph (a)(61);

k. By revising paragraph (a)(64);

l. By revising paragraph (a)(68);

m. By revising paragraph (a)(71);

n. By revising paragraph (a)(72);

o. By revising paragraph (a)(75);

p. By revising paragraph (a)(76);

q. By revising paragraph (a)(81);

r. By revising paragraph (a)(88);

s. By revising paragraph (a)(106);

t. By revising paragraph (a)(107);

u. By revising paragraph (a)(108); and

v. By adding paragraphs (a)(109) through (a)(117).

w. By revising paragraph (h)(4);

x. By reserving paragraph (i);

y. By redesignating paragraph (m)(1) as paragraph (m)(4);

z. By revising paragraph (m)(2);

aa. By adding new paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(3); and

bb. By revising newly redesignated paragraph (m)(4).

The revisions and additions read as follows.

§ 60.17 Incorporations by Reference.

(a) * * *

(9) ASTM D129-11, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products (General High Pressure Decomposition Device Method), IBR approved for § 60.4360(c).

(16) ASTM D975-11, 11b, Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils, IBR approved for §§ 60.41b of subpart Db of this part, 60.41c of subpart Dc of this part, and 60.4420 of subpart KKKK of this part.

(18) ASTM D1072-06, 06, Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur in Fuel Gases, IBR approved for § 60.4360(c).

(22) ASTM D1266-07, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products (Lamp Method), IBR approved for § 60.4360(c).

(25) ASTM D1552-08, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products (High-Temperature Method), IBR approved for § 60.4360(c).

(40) ASTM D2622-10, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry, IBR approved for § 60.4360(c).

(50) ASTM D3246-11, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Gas by Oxidative Microcoulometry, IBR approved for § 60.4360(c).

(57) ASTM D4057-06 (Reapproved 2011), Standard Practice for Manual Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, IBR approved for § 60.4360(b).

(59) ASTM D4084-07, Standard Test Method for Analysis of Hydrogen Sulfide in Gaseous Fuels (Lead Acetate Reaction Rate Method), IBR approved for § 60.4360(c).

(