Comment Info: =================

General Comment: Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, as well as many of my friends and family members, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life - I was a pack-and-a-half a day smoker, and I haven't bought a pack of cigarettes for over 4 months thanks to electronic cigarettes and e-liquid (liquid nicotine). I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


then kiln dried lumber manufacturing could be listed as a major source category under section 112( c) of the CAA in the future, requiring a separate CAA section 112( d) rulemaking and potentially becoming separately subject to the provisions of section 112( g) of the CAA as well. We felt it was reasonable to include non colocated lumber kilns in the PCWP source category because the design and operation of lumber kilns are essentially the same regardless of whether the kilns are located at a sawmill or are colocated with PCWP or other types of manufacturing operations. At proposal, we noted that there are no currently applicable controls at any lumber kilns and that it would be both more efficient and expeditious to include all lumber kilns in the 93 MACT analysis for the final PCWP rule than to separately address them in a rulemaking that likely would not result in meaningful emissions reductions from lumber kilns. In addition, we noted that including all lumber kilns in the final PCWP MACT results in placing them on a faster schedule for purposes of future residual risk analysis under CAA section 112( f).

In an attempt to better understand the concerns of the commenters, we met with wood products industry representatives who requested that lumber kilns be included in the PCWP source category and with the commenters who disagreed that non colocated lumber kilns should be included in the PCWP source category. After consideration of concerns expressed by all of the commenters on this issue,

we maintain that it is more efficient for EPA, State regulators, and lumber kiln operators for EPA to include all lumber kilns in the final PCWP NESHAP. Because the MACT floor determination for lumber kilns is no emission reduction ( as explained in the proposal preamble), there will not be a significant monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden for facilities with only non colocated lumber kilns. Only those facilities that are major sources of HAP emissions are subject to the final PCWP NESHAP.

Facilities with non colocated lumber kilns that are classified as major sources of HAP must submit an initial 94 notification form required by the final PCWP NESHAP and the Part 1 " MACT Hammer" application required by section 112( j)

of the CAA. We note that both of these forms simply ask the facilities to identify themselves to EPA. We acknowledge that operators of non colocated lumber kilns were not aware that they were included in the PCWP source category until the proposed PCWP NESHAP was printed in the Federal Register on January 9, 2003, and therefore, would not have known to submit a Part 1 application by May 15, 2002.

4. Regulated HAP Comment: One commenter objected to the fact that the proposed rule only set standards for six HAP. The commenter asserted that, according to the CAA and National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625, 633 634 ( D. C. Cir. 2000), we are required to set standards for every HAP listed in CAA section 112( b)( 1) emitted by PCWP operations, not just the ones that are the easiest to measure. Other commenters disagreed and noted that a requirement that EPA impose an emission standard for every listed HAP, without regard to whether or not there are applicable methods for reducing HAP emissions or whether the MACT floor sources actually use such method, contradicts the plain language of the statute.

These commenters contended that the statute specifically frames the inquiry in terms of degrees of reduction.

Response: Today's final PCWP rule contains numerical 95 emission limits in terms of methanol, formaldehyde, THC, or total HAP ( which is defined in the final rule as the sum of six HAP including acrolein, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde,

methanol, phenol, and propionaldehyde). The nationwide PCWP emissions of total HAP are 18,190 tons/ yr, which is 96 percent of the nationwide emissions of all HAP ( 19,000 tons/ yr) emitted by PCWP facilities. The six HAP that comprise total HAP are found in emissions from all PCWP product sectors that contain major sources and in emissions from most process units. At proposal, when we stated that other HAP are emitted " in low quantities that may be difficult to measure," we were referring to HAP that are often emitted at levels below test method detection limits ( 68 FR 1276, January 9, 2003). Our data clearly show that these other HAP are difficult or impossible to measure because they are either emitted in very low quantities or are not present. Such low quantities are not detectable by the applicable emission testing procedures ( which are sensitive enough to detect HAP at concentrations below 1 part per million ( ppm)). Many of these other HAP were detected in less than 15 percent of test runs, or for only one type of process unit.

Based on our emissions data, we determined that methanol, formaldehyde, THC, or total HAP are appropriate surrogates for measuring all organic HAP measurably emitted 96 by the PCWP source category. The PBCO and emissions averaging compliance options in today's final PCWP rule are based on total HAP. Review of the emission factors used to develop the emissions estimates for the PCWP source category indicates that uncontrolled emissions of HAP ( other than the six HAP) are always lower than emissions of the six HAP for every process unit with MACT control requirements. Thus,

process units meeting the PBCO based on total HAP also would have low emissions of other organic HAP. The emissions averaging provisions and add on control device compliance options involve use of add on APCD. The available data show that a reduction in one predominant HAP ( or THC) correlates with a reduction in other HAP if the other HAP is present in detectable quantities and at sufficient concentration. The data also show that the mechanisms in RTO, RCO, and biofilters that reduce emissions of formaldehyde and methanol reduce emissions of the remaining HAP. In addition, an analysis of the physical properties of the organic HAP emitted from PCWP processes indicates that nearly all of the HAP would be combusted at normal thermal oxidizer operating temperatures. Today's standards are based on the use of add on control devices because the available emissions data do not reveal any process variables that could be manipulated ( without altering the product) to achieve a quantifiable reduction in emissions. Furthermore, 97 nothing in the data suggests that process variables could be manipulated in a way that would alter the relationship between formaldehyde and methanol reduction and reduction of other HAP. We determined that it is appropriate for the final PCWP rule to contain compliance options in terms of total HAP, THC, formaldehyde, or methanol because the same measures used to reduce emissions of these pollutants also reduce emissions of other organic HAP.

B. Overlap with Other Rules 1. Overlap with Industrial/ Commercial/ Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP Comment: Commenters expressed support for our proposal to regulate emissions from combustion units used to direct fire dryers and to exclude these emissions from the requirements of the Industrial/ Commercial/ Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP. However, the commenters expressed concern about potential NESHAP applicability questions that could arise during short periods when the exhaust gases from these combustion units are not exhausting through the dryers and would bypass any controls applied to these dryers. The commenters noted that in some of the combustion units associated with direct fired dryers, a small percentage of combustion gas is routed to indirect heat exchange and then is normally and predominantly routed to direct fired gas flow. According to the commenters, in 98 these hybrid units, typically only a small fraction of combustion gas ( e. g., less than 10 percent of total capacity) is routed to indirect heat exchange for hot oil/ steam generation. This fraction of the combustion unit exhaust then generally exhausts through the direct fired dryers and the emissions are treated by the add on control device at the dryers' outlet. However, under certain circumstances ( e. g., during startups, shutdowns,

emergencies, or periods when dryers are down for maintenance but steam/ thermal oil is still needed for plant and/ or press heat), some systems may exhaust directly to the atmosphere without passing through the direct fired dryers and the associated control systems. The commenters recommended that this small subset of combustion units be assigned a primary purpose ( based on the predominant allocation of British thermal units per hour ( Btu/ hr) capacity and/ or predominant mode of operation) and regulated accordingly. In the above example, the commenters assumed that the primary purpose is as a direct fired dryer, such that the equipment would be subject to the final PCWP MACT and not to the Industrial/ Commercial/ Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP.

Response: In considering the commenters' request, we reviewed available information on direct fired dryers and the associated combustion units at PCWP facilities. The 99 available information indicates that there are many configurations of combustion units, dryers, and thermal oil heaters in the PCWP industry. While some systems have the hybrid configurations described by the commenters whereby a portion of the combustion gas is routed to indirect heat exchange, other systems retain all of the combustion gas within the direct fired system. We do not have sufficient information ( and no such information was provided by the commenters) to fully evaluate the need for a primary purpose designation for PCWP combustion units, to establish the percentage of operating time or British thermal unit ( Btu)

limits for such a primary purpose designation, or to determine MACT for combustion units that would meet the primary purpose designation. For example, we do not know how many combustion units are configured to incorporate both indirect and direct heat exchange, and for these units we do not know the amount of time or the percentage of Btu allocation that is devoted to indirect heat exchange or the controls used to reduce emissions during indirect heat exchange. We expect that all of these factors vary substantially from facility to facility for those facilities that have these hybrid combustion units. We also lack information on the emissions reduction techniques ( e. g.,

control devices) applied to combustion units associated with direct fired PCWP dryers that may bypass the dryers for some 100 unknown percentage of time. Therefore, we feel it would be inappropriate for us to establish a primary purpose designation which could inadvertently allow facilities to configure their systems to direct a portion of their uncontrolled emissions to the atmosphere without these emissions' being subject to the Industrial/ Commercial/ Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP. Also, we wish to clarify that the final PCWP rule regulates only that portion of emissions from a combustion unit that are routed through the direct fired dryers. Any emissions from a combustion unit that are not routed through the direct fired dryers would be subject to the Industrial/ Commercial/ Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP. Therefore, if the emissions from a combustion unit are split such that only a portion of the emissions are routed through a direct fired dryer, then the combustion unit would be subject to both rules.

For those occasions when a facility must shut down its direct fired dryers but still wants to operate the combustion unit to heat oil for the press, the facility could propose in its startup, shutdown, and malfunction ( SSM) plan to route exhaust through the thermal oil heater ( and then to the atmosphere) during these periods. The permitting authority would then decide on a facilityspecific basis if heating of the thermal oil heater ( and the 101 associated uncontrolled emissions) should be allowed during dryer SSM considering the amount of time that this condition occurs, the fraction of combustion unit Btu used to heat the thermal oil heater, and the type of control used to reduce combustion unit emissions.

2. Overlap with Wood Building Products ( WBP) NESHAP Comment: Commenters on the proposed Wood Building Products ( Surface Coating) rule ( subpart QQQQ to 40 CFR part 63) asserted that neither asphalt coated fiberboard nor ceiling tiles are coated with HAP containing materials and that regulating such products would be burdensome. These commenters requested that we include asphalt coating of fiberboard and ceiling tiles in today's final PCWP rule by including these coating operations under the definition of miscellaneous coating operations ( for which the proposed MACT was no emissions reductions), so that these operations would be subject to the final PCWP rule and not the WBP rule, as proposed.

Response: In the proposed rule, we addressed overlap between the WBP and PCWP NESHAP by including specific surface coating activities ( which occur onsite at a PCWP manufacturing facility) in the definition of " miscellaneous coating operations." Inclusion of these activities in the definition of miscellaneous coating operations means that these activities are subject to the final PCWP rule and not 102 to the WBP rule, as proposed. We made changes to the definition of miscellaneous coating operations in today's final rule in response to the public comments we received on the proposed WBP rule relating to asphalt coated fiberboard and ceiling tiles.

We evaluated the types of coatings and processes used to make asphalt coated fiberboard and found that only a few facilities in the United States make these products, with varying manufacturing and coating processes. An asphalt emulsion can be added during the fiberboard forming process,

or asphalt can be applied to the fiberboard substrate.

Information we collected on asphalt coatings suggests that they contain no HAP. Depending on the company and the process, the coating can be applied before or after the final dryer with the product allowed to air dry. Ceiling tiles are usually coated using non HAP slurries of titanium dioxide and various clays, and no organic solvents are used.

Most of the coatings associated with these types of products are applied during the substrate forming process ( i. e., to the wet mat being formed) or prior to the final substrate drying operation, fiberboard coating operations ( including those used in the manufacture of asphalt coated fiberboard and ceiling tiles). Because no HAP are contained in the above mentioned coatings, the coatings are applied as part of the manufacturing process, and MACT for these coating 103 processes is no emissions reductions, we changed the definition of miscellaneous coating operations to include " application of asphalt, clay slurry, or titanium dioxide coatings to fiberboard at the same site of fiberboard manufacture." These products are not subject to the final WBP surface coating rule.

C. Amendments to the Effluent Guidelines for Timber Products Processing Comment: Several commenters requested that we address potential conflicts between the PCWP rule as proposed and the effluent guidelines for the Timber Products Processing Point Source Category. These commenters noted that the effluent guidelines state that " there shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants into navigable waters."

However, according to the commenters, at the time that statement was written, air pollution controls were not common, and EPA was not aware of the large volumes of water that can be produced by APCD. The commenters recommended that we address this issue by revising the effluent guidelines at 40 CFR part 429. Specifically, these commenters asked us to amend the definition of process wastewaters at 40 CFR part 429.11( c) so that the discharge prohibition in 40 CFR part 429 would not apply to wastewaters associated with APCD operation and maintenance when installed to comply with the final PCWP MACT rule. 104 These commenters asserted that effluent limitations for these wastewaters should be developed by permit writers on a case by case basis based upon best professional judgment.

These commenters noted that the language we included in the preamble to the proposed rule would generally accomplish this purpose with some minor changes ( see 68 FR 1276,

January 9, 2003). The commenters also provided rationale and data to support their recommendation. The commenters contended that we: ( 1) underestimated the volume of wastewater that would be generated by the application of MACT and as a result, underestimated the associated costs of disposing of this wastewater; ( 2) failed to address the achievability/ feasibility of MACT if the discharge of air pollution control wastewaters is prohibited; and ( 3) did not consider wastewater from air pollution control devices when the Timber Products zero discharge effluent guidelines were originally developed. The commenters submitted several case studies to demonstrate the variability in the volume of wastewater generated at various PCWP facilities and to show how each facility currently recycles, reuses, and disposes of wastewater generated from the operation and maintenance of RTO, WESP and biofilters. The commenters also argued that the available data do not support a conclusion that wastewaters generated from MACT control devices can, with Best Available Technology ( BAT), be managed in a way that 105 does not involve a discharge.

Response: At the time we proposed the PCWP rule, we indicated that we would consider amending the definition of process wastewater in 40 CFR part 429 to exclude those wastewaters generated by APCD operation and maintenance when installed to comply with the proposed PCWP NESHAP. We indicated in the preamble to the proposal that we would amend the definition of process wastewaters if information and data were submitted to support the industry's assertions that PCWP facilities in certain subcategories would not be able consistently to achieve the effluent limitations guidelines and standards applicable to them if they were to comply with the proposed PCWP NESHAP. As part of the PCWP proposal, we described with specificity how we would revise 40 CFR part 429 if we were convinced that such revisions were appropriate and solicited data and information.

Based on the data and information submitted by the commenters, we have concluded that facilities subject to 40 CFR part 429, subpart B ( Veneer subcategory), subpart C ( Plywood subcategory), subpart D ( Dry Process Hardboard subcategory), and subpart M ( Particleboard Manufacturing subcategory) are unable to comply consistently with the existing 40 CFR part 429 effluent limitations guidelines and standards, which prohibit the discharge of process wastewater pollutants, because of the volume of wastewaters 106 generated by APCD that are installed to comply with the final PCWP NESHAP and because the technology basis for those effluent limitations guidelines and standards is insufficient, in light of that wastewater volume and the pollutant content, to achieve the prohibition on process wastewater discharges for these NESHAP related APCD wastewaters. Therefore, we are excluding from the definition of process wastewaters in 40 CFR 29.11( c) the following wastewaters associated with APCD used by PCWP facilities covered by subparts B, C, D, and M to comply with 40 CFR 63.22: wastewater from washout of thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers, wastewater from biofilters, and wastewater from WESP used upstream of thermal oxidizers or catalytic oxidizers.

In addition, we agree with comments that we will need considerably more data and information to promulgate new effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the process wastewaters at issue today. In particular, we will need information to adequately characterize the quantity and quality of wastewater that would be generated as result of compliance with the MACT standards. The volume and pollutant content of wastewater generated at these facilities are related to production processes, air pollution control equipment that generate wastewater, the extent of opportunities for internal recycling of 107 wastewater, and the availability of other process uses for wastewater. Until we promulgate effluent limitations guidelines and standards for pollutants in these process wastewaters, Best Practicable Technology ( BPT) and BAT effluent limitations should be established on a case by case basis under 40 CFR 125.3. Thus, individual facilities seeking a discharge permit will have the opportunity, on a case by case basis, to characterize and obtain discharge allowances for their wastewaters from APCD installed to comply with the final PCWP NESHAP. The permit writer would be expected to determine, based upon best professional judgment ( BPJ), the appropriate effluent limitations for these APCD wastewaters. ( See 40 CFR 125.3.) The permit writer can take into account facility specific information on wastewater volumes and pollutants, available wastewater control and treatment technologies, costs and effluent reduction benefits, receiving water quality, and any applicable State water quality standards. At a later date,

we expect to consider whether to amend the existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the Timber Processing Industry to cover these process wastewaters.

Such an effort would involve gathering and analyzing the information and data necessary to establish revised categorical effluent limitations affecting subparts B, C, D,

and M of 40 CFR part 429 for these APCD wastewaters 108 generated in complying with the final PCWP NESHAP.

Today's amendment to the final rule is based on regulatory language included in the preamble accompanying the proposed NESHAP for PCWP facilities ( 68 FR 1276, January 9, 2003). The preamble described the relationship of the proposed MACT rule to the amendment to 40 CFR part 429 under consideration. The preamble explained that the entities affected by the proposed MACT rule would also be affected by the proposed amendment to 40 CFR part 429; presented both the terms and substance of the amendment under consideration; and described the subjects and issues involved. In addition, we solicited comments on whether to amend 40 CFR 429.11( c) and information relevant to that decision. While at that time we indicated that we were considering employing a direct final rule to promulgate any such amendment, we have concluded with support from commenters that that procedure was unnecessary and instead are taking final action on the amendment today without further process.

D. Existing Source MACT 1. OSB Strand Dryers Comment: One commenter requested that further consideration be given to the emission standards for lowtemperature OSB conveyor strand dryers. The commenter stated that because these conveyor strand dryers emit less 109 HAP than rotary strand dryers and have been recognized as best available control technology ( BACT) in Minnesota, they should be exempted from control requirements in the final PCWP rule. The commenter noted that the 12 conveyor strand dryers used by their company have three drying zones, each with its own heating system and exhaust vent( s). When drying hardwoods, no VOC control is required; however, when drying pine the company controls emissions from zones 1 and 2. Zone 3 serves as a final conditioning zone and is exhausted to the atmosphere without need for VOC control.

The proposed PCWP rule would have required the sum of the emissions from all three zones to be reduced to MACT levels ( e. g., 90 percent reduction).

Response: The MACT analysis we conducted at proposal treated conveyor strand dryers as a separate equipment group from rotary strand dryers. We noted that rotary strand dryers operate at much higher inlet temperatures ( e. g.,

often greater than or equal to 900oF) than conveyor strand dryers ( e. g., typically less than 400oF) and that rotary dryers provide greater agitation of the wood strands than conveyor strand dryers. As a result, the emissions from conveyor strand dryers are lower than the emissions from rotary strand dryers. The emissions test data we have for conveyor strand dryers ( only formaldehyde and THC data are available) indicate that formaldehyde emissions from 110 conveyor strand dryers are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude lower than for rotary strand dryers. The THC emissions are also lower for conveyor strand dryers than for rotary dryers.

Our MACT analysis for conveyor strand dryers at proposal concluded that three of the eight conveyor strand dryers used in the U. S. operated with process incineration.

Because there are less than 30 conveyor strand dryers, the MACT floor was based on the control level achieved by the third best controlled dryer. Thus, at proposal, we determined that the MACT floor control system for new and existing conveyor strand dryers was the emissions reductions achievable with incineration based control. We included one definition of " strand dryers" in the proposed PCWP rule since MACT for both rotary and conveyor strand dryers was represented by incineration based control.

As pointed out by the commenter, conveyor strand dryers have distinct zones, with each zone having its own heating system and exhaust. We reviewed our MACT survey data and learned that all of the conveyor strand dryers in the U. S.

have three zones. Upon further scrutiny of the MACT analysis at proposal, we learned that the three conveyor strand dryers that formed the basis for the MACT floor at proposal were routing the emissions from zone 1 only to an onsite combustion unit for incineration. The remaining five conveyor strand dryers have no HAP control. Thus, our 111 conclusions regarding the MACT floor for conveyor strand dryers at proposal were overstated. The third bestcontrolled conveyor strand dryer has incineration based control only on zone 1 as opposed to controls on all zones.

Therefore, we revised our analysis to reflect that the MACT floor for existing conveyor strand dryers is the emissions reduction achievable with incineration based control on zone 1. To implement this change, we added definitions for " conveyor strand dryer" and " conveyor strand dryer zone" to the final rule.

The commenter mentioned operating 12 conveyor strand dryers. Six of these conveyor strand dryers are located at new plants that were not included in our pre proposal MACT floor analysis. These six conveyor strand dryers route emissions from zones 1 and 2 to a closed loop incineration system for emissions control. Given that newer facilities are incinerating conveyor strand dryer exhaust from zones 1 and 2, we determined that the MACT floor for conveyor strand dryers at new sources is the emissions reductions achievable with incineration based control for exhausts from zones 1 and 2.

As described in the promulgation BID and supporting documentation, we determined that the environmental benefit of controlling additional conveyor dryer zones would not justify the cost for existing or new conveyor strand dryers. 112 2. Wood Products Press Enclosures Comment: Many commenters argued that EPA Method 204 compliance should not be a part of the PCWP MACT floor for presses because most of the press enclosures that were described in the industry survey data as having permanent total enclosures ( PTE) were never certified by Method 204 criteria. The commenters noted that most of these enclosures were designed according to Method 204 design criteria; however, the permits for these facilities never required them to comply fully with Method 204 certification.

The commenters contended that, of the 26 presses identified as having PTE, only 2 had actually undergone Method 204 certification.

The commenters also argued that Method 204 cannot be applied practically to the hot presses that are used at PCWP facilities. The commenters stated that Method 204 was developed for applications where the emissions have consistent properties; however, the temperature and density of emissions from a typical multiple opening batch wood products press are constantly changing as the press opens and closes, which creates layers of gases with different physical properties within the enclosure. According to the commenters, instead of mixing and exiting the enclosure, the layers of gases can accumulate. The layers of gas in the upper region of the enclosure have a higher temperature and 113 pressure than the air outside the press, and the lower layers of gas have a lower temperature and pressure than the air outside the press. The commenters maintained that to force the gases outside the enclosure, the operator would have to increase the airflow through the system to a rate that is three to four times higher than would be necessary for an enclosure operating at a homogenous temperature and pressure. The commenters contended that, while many of the wood products presses were designed to follow the Method 204 design criteria, they were not designed to overcome this phenomenon and may not be able to certify that all of the emissions are captured and contained.

The commenters recommended that we address the press capture efficiency issue by implementing work practice requirements for enclosures. The commenters suggested that we replace the proposed definition of PTE with a definition that includes four of the five design criteria found in EPA Method 204, and replaces the requirement that " all VOC emissions must be captured and contained for discharge through a control device" with a requirement that " fugitive emissions shall be minimized through appropriate operation and maintenance procedures applied to the PTE system."

Response: At proposal, we stated that the MACT floor determination for reconstituted wood products presses was based, in part, on the assumption that a sufficient number 114 of these presses had enclosures that had been certified as PTE according to EPA Method 204. Presses equipped with Method 204 certified PTE would be allowed to claim 100 percent capture efficiency, and thus, the rule requirements ( e. g., 90 percent emissions reductions) would effectively apply only to the captured emissions.

Based on our review of available permit information, we agree with the commenters' assessment that few permits have required full Method 204 certification for reconstituted wood products press enclosures, even though many of these press enclosures were constructed based on the Method 204 design criteria. We also agree that the nature of the batch pressing operations in the PCWP industry can make Method 204 certification difficult. Unlike in the printing and publishing industry, for which Method 204 was originally developed, batch PCWP presses are heated, cyclical operations. Because of the internal pressurization within PCWP press enclosures, small amounts of fugitive emissions may appear around the outside of these enclosures. The percentage of press emissions that may be escaping from some of these enclosures has not been quantified but is expected to be small based on available information. We understand the commenters' concern that, due to the presence of these small amounts of fugitive emissions, facilities cannot certify that their Method 204 designed press enclosure can 115 achieve all the Method 204 criteria, in particular the criteria in Method 204 section 6.2 which states that " All VOC emissions must be captured and contained for discharge through a control device." While we feel that PCWP press enclosures should be designed to capture emissions under normal operating conditions, we do not feel it is necessary for PCWP facilities to increase the flow rate from their press enclosures ( and the size of their APCD) three to four times to overcome the pressurization within the press enclosure. For the PCWP industry, we feel it would be particularly inappropriate to require such a large increase in exhaust flow to the APCD because the exhaust flows from PCWP process equipment, including presses, are already high volume, low concentration emission streams. High volume,

low concentration exhaust streams generally are more costly to treat than low volume, high concentration emission streams. The best performing press enclosures that defined the MACT floor surround heated presses and are all expected to have pressurization within the press enclosure. In addition, we note that board cooler exhaust is sometimes directed into press enclosures and that enclosures around board coolers have not been certified according to EPA Method 204.

Therefore, instead of requiring EPA Method 204 certification of PCWP press and board cooler enclosures as 116 proposed, today's final rule sets forth slightly different criteria for press and board cooler enclosures. These criteria are based on the design criteria for PTE included in EPA Method 204, as recommended by the commenters;

however, the criterion to capture and contain all VOC emissions has been replaced with a requirement that the enclosure be " designed and maintained to capture all emissions for discharge through a control device." To effect this change, we removed references to PTE in the final rule and replaced the proposed definition of PTE with a new definition of " wood products enclosure" that lists the design criteria that must be met to comply with MACT.

Enclosures that meet the definition of wood products enclosure do not have to test to determine the capture efficiency of these enclosures, but can assume 100 percent capture, such that the control requirements ( e. g., 90 percent reduction) apply only to the captured emissions ( i. e., the small amount of fugitive emissions outside the enclosure is disregarded).

We also replaced the proposed definition of " partial enclosure" with a slightly revised definition of " partial wood products enclosure" to eliminate any references to PTE in the final rule. Because the capture efficiency of partial wood products enclosures is unknown, today's final rule requires facilities to test the capture efficiency of 117 partial wood products enclosures using EPA Methods 204 and 204A F ( as appropriate), or using the alternative tracer gas procedure included in appendix A to subpart DDDD of 40 CFR part 63. In addition, facilities have the option of using other methods for determining capture efficiency subject to the approval of the Administrator. As was proposed and suggested by the commenters, today's final rule requires facilities using partial wood products enclosures to demonstrate a combined 90 percent capture and control efficiency for those facilities showing compliance with the percent reduction requirements for APCD. If the partial wood products enclosure does not achieve high capture efficiency, then facilities must offset the needed capture efficiency by achieving a higher destruction efficiency or with emissions averaging ( with the press being an undercontrolled process unit).

Comment: One commenter objected to the proposed MACT floor for continuous presses and questioned the applicability of EPA Method 204 to continuous presses. The commenter requested that we divide continuous and batch presses into two different process unit groups for the purpose of determining the MACT floor. The commenter provided information from environmental engineering firms and press manufacturers regarding the fundamental differences between the two types of presses. The commenter 118 noted that continuous presses are much longer than batch presses, reaching lengths of 200 feet ( ft), which makes them difficult to completely enclose. The commenter was unaware of any continuous presses that have Method 204 certified PTE. The commenter stated that enclosing a continuous press would cause operational problems, such as heat build up and impaired visibility, which can lead to mechanical failures and unscheduled downtime. The commenter also cited potential safety concerns, such as increased fire risk and the possibility of unhealthy levels of HAP trapped inside the enclosure. The commenter further noted that the capital and operating costs of PTE applied to continuous presses would exceed those associated with batch presses due to the large size of the enclosure and the increased maintenance costs resulting from heat build up within the enclosure. In addition, the commenter provided VOC emissions data based on measurements made at different points along the length of one of their continuous presses to demonstrate that emissions from the front stages are minimal and that the majority of emissions are from the last 40 percent of the press length, referred to as the " decompression zone." The commenter contended that gathering the emissions from all stages of the continuous press will result in a more dilute stream, which will be less cost effective to treat, and that the large volume of exhaust to be treated would likely 119 preclude the use of biofilters, which are more practical for treating smaller volumes of air.

To remedy the situation, the commenter recommended that we divide batch and continuous presses into two different process unit groups for the purpose of determining the MACT floor. Because there are fewer than 30 continuous presses,

the MACT floor for existing continuous presses would be determined based on the average emissions limitation achieved by the five best performing continuous presses.

The commenter provided information to support the commenter's contention that none of the continuous presses achieved 100 percent capture and suggested that the MACT floor for capture efficiency is 80 percent capture of emissions from the decompression stages.

Response: As explained in the proposal preamble, we based the MACT floor determinations for PCWP equipment on process units that are similar with respect to design,

operation, and emissions. We acknowledge that continuous presses have a different design than multiopening batch presses. However, continuous presses have emissions that are within the same range as those from batch presses on a lb/ MSF of board basis. Therefore, we feel it is reasonable to group batch and continuous presses together for purposes of determining the MACT floor. The MACT floor for continuous presses would be the same as the MACT floor for 120 batch presses regardless of whether batch and continuous presses were placed in separate equipment groups. As explained below, we disagree that the MACT floor capture efficiency for continuous presses is 80 percent, as suggested by the commenter.

The commenter was incorrect in suggesting that there are no continuous presses with Method 204 certified PTE. The two existing press enclosures in the PCWP industry identified as being Method 204 certified surround continuous presses. The lengths of these two continuous presses are 41.5 ft and 110 ft. Due to the presence of these presses plus additional continuous presses equipped with total enclosures not certified via Method 204, the MACT floor for new and existing continuous presses is still a total


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 2, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37679-37681]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15525]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0438; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-015-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Alexandria Aircraft LLC Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 75-20-06,
which applies to certain Alexandria Aircraft LLC (type certificate
previously held by Bellanca Aircraft Corp., Viking Aviation, Inc., and
Bellanca, Inc.) Models 14-19-3A, 17-30, 17-30A, 17-31, 17-31A, 17-
31ATC, and 17-31TC airplanes. AD 75-20-06 requires repetitively
inspecting the aft fuselage structure near the top of the vertical side
tubing, which connects the horizontal stabilizer carry-through to the
upper fuselage longeron, for cracks and installing the manufacturer's
service repair kit as a terminating action for the repetitive
inspections to repair any cracks found. Since we issued AD 75-20-06, we
have determined that installing the service kit has not prevented
cracks from occurring. We have also determined that all affected
airplane serial numbers should be included in the Applicability
section. This proposed AD would require continued repetitive
inspections of the aft fuselage structure near the top of the vertical
side tubing for cracks and making all necessary replacements of cracks
parts. This proposed AD would also add additional serial number
airplanes to the Applicability section. We are proposing this AD to
correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 18, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Alexandria Aircraft LLC, 2504 Aga Drive, Alexandria, MN 5630; phone:
(320) 763-4088; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: www.bellanca-
aircraft.com; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may view this
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0438; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenfeld, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, 2300 East Devon Avenue,
Room 107, Des Plaines, IL 60018; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (847) 294-
7834; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0438;
Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-015-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On September 12, 1975, we issued AD 75-20-06, Amendment 39-2372 (40
FR 13184, September 22, 1975), (``AD 75-20-06''), for certain
Alexandria Aircraft LLC (type certificate previously held by Bellanca
Aircraft Corp., Viking Aviation, Inc., and Bellanca, Inc.) Models 14-
19-3A, 17-30, 17-30A, 17-31, 17-31A, 17-31ATC, and 17-31TC airplanes.
AD 75-20-06 requires repetitively inspecting the aft fuselage structure
near the top of the vertical side tubing, which connects the horizontal
stabilizer carry-through to the upper fuselage longeron, for cracks and
installing the manufacturer's service repair kit (Bellanca Kit
SK1234789-0004) as a terminating action for the repetitive inspections
to repair any cracks found. AD 75-20-06 resulted from reports of cracks
found in the aft fuselage structure near the horizontal stabilizer
carry-through on the Model 17 series airplanes. We issued AD 75-20-06
to detect and correct cracks in either vertical side fuselage tube
(fuselage station (F.S.) 7), which is adjacent to the horizontal
stabilizer carry-through, in the area near the upper fuselage longeron
to prevent failure of the horizontal stabilizer. This failure could
cause reduced structural integrity of the fuselage and result in loss
of control.

Actions Since AD 75-20-06 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 75-20-06, we have received reports that cracks
are still being found in the vertical side fuselage tube (F.S. 7) in
the area near the upper fuselage longeron on airplanes that have had
Bellanca Kit SK1234789-0004 installed, which is a terminating action
for the repetitive inspections required in AD 75-20-06.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Alexandria Aircraft LLC Bellanca Service Letter 85,
Revision B, dated April 8, 2004. The service letter describes
procedures for repetitively inspecting the horizontal stabilizer
fuselage attachment tube and carry-thru tube support bracket for cracks
and replacing any cracked parts found.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain the inspection requirements of AD 75-
20-06 and remove the terminating action allowed in AD 75-20-06.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 847 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost              Parts cost          product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspecting the horizontal          1 work-hour x $85 per     Not applicable.....             $85         $71,995
 stabilizer fuselage attachment     hour = $85.
 tube and carry-thru tube support
 bracket (retained actions from
 AD 75-20-06).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of the horizontal stabilizer     30 work-hours x $85 per hour =                 $575          $3,125
 fuselage attachment tube and carry-thru      $2,550.
 tube support bracket.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
75-20-06, Amendment 39-2372 (40 FR 13184, September 22, 1975), and
adding the following new AD:

Alexandria Aircraft LLC: Docket No. FAA-2014-0438; Directorate
Identifier 2014-CE-015-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August 18,
2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 75-20-06, Amendment 39-2372 (40 FR 13184,
September 22, 1975) (``AD 75-20-06'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Alexandria Aircraft LLC (type certificate
previously held by Bellanca Aircraft Corp., Viking Aviation, Inc.,
and Bellanca, Inc.) Models 14-19-3A, 17-30, 17-30A, 17-31, 17-31A,
17-31ATC, and 17-31TC airplanes, all serial numbers (S/Ns),
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports that cracks are still being
found in the vertical side fuselage tube (fuselage station 7) in the
area near the upper fuselage longeron on airplanes that have had
Bellanca Kit SK1234789-0004 installed, which is a terminating action
for the repetitive inspections required in AD 75-20-06. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in either vertical side
fuselage tube (F.S. 7), which is adjacent to the horizontal
stabilizer carry-through, in the area near the upper fuselage
longeron to prevent failure of the horizontal stabilizer. This
failure could cause reduced structural integrity of the fuselage and
result in loss of control.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified
paragraphs (g) through (h) of this AD, unless already done.

(g) Inspection

    (1) Models 14-19-3A and 17-31A, S/Ns 32-15 through 76-32-163;
Models 17-30 and 17-30A, S/Ns 30263 through 76-30811; and Models 17-
31, 17-31TC, and 17-31ATC, S/Ns 30004, and 31004 through 76-31124

(airplanes previously affected by AD 75-20-06): Within the next 100
hours time-in-service (TIS) after the last inspection completed by
AD 75-20-06 or within the next 25 hours TIS after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs later, and repetitively thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS, visually inspect the aft
fuselage truss for cracks as specified in paragraph 4. INSPECTION of
Alexandria Aircraft LLC Bellanca Service Letter 85, Revision B,
dated April 8, 2004.
    (2) Models 14-19-3A, 17-30, 17-30A, 17-31, 17-31A, 17-31ATC, and
17-31TC airplanes, all S/Ns not referenced in paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD (airplanes not previously affected by AD 75-20-06): Before
or upon the accumulation of 300 hours time-in-service (TIS) or
within the next 25 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 100 hours TIS, visually inspect the aft fuselage truss for
cracks as specified in paragraph 4. INSPECTION of Alexandria
Aircraft LLC Bellanca Service Letter 85, Revision B, dated April 8,
2004.

(h) Replacement

    If cracks are found during any inspection required by paragraphs
(g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, before further flight, replace the
cracked parts with FAA-approved zero-time parts as specified in
paragraph 5. REPAIR of Alexandria Aircraft LLC Bellanca Service
Letter 85, Revision B, dated April 8, 2004.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) AMOCs approved for AD 75-20-06, Amendment 39-2372 (40 FR
13184, September 22, 1975) are not approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of this AD.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Steven
Rosenfeld, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Chicago ACO, 2300 East Devon
Avenue, Room 107, Des Plaines, IL 60018; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
(847) 294-7834; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Alexandria Aircraft LLC, 2504 Aga Drive, Alexandria, MN 5630; phone:
(320) 763-4088; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: www.bellanca-
aircraft.com; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may view
this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 24, 2014.
Timothy Smyth,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-15525 Filed 7-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 55328]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22034]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Competition
Plans, Passenger Facility Charges

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on June 27, 2013, vol. 78, no. 124, page 38794-38795. Title
49, United States Code, Sections 40117(k) and 47106(f) require that a
covered airport submit a written competition plan to the Secretary/
Administrator in order to receive approval to impose a Passenger
Facility Charge (PFC) or to receive a grant under the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP).

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by October 10, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0661.
    Title: Competition Plans, Passenger Facility Charges.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection of information.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The DOT/FAA will use any information submitted in
response to this requirement to carry out the intent of Title 49,
Sections 40117(k) and 47106(f), which is to assure that a covered
airport has, and implements, a plan that affects its business practices
to provide opportunities for competitive access by new entrant carriers
or carriers seeking to expand. The affected public includes public
agencies controlling medium or large hub airports.
    Respondents: 7 affected airports annually.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 136 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,050 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 4, 2013.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2013-22034 Filed 9-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46681-46682]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21520]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0558, FRL-9969-00-Region 8]

Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards; North Dakota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from the State of
North Dakota to demonstrate the State meets infrastructure requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for sulfur dioxide (SO2) on
June 2, 2010, and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on
December 14, 2012.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0558. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 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, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the
hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Gregory, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Infrastructure requirements for SIPs are set forth in section
110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2) lists the specific
infrastructure elements that a SIP must contain or satisfy. The
elements that are the subject of this action are described in detail in
our notice of proposed rulemaking published on June 6, 2017 (82 FR
25999).
    In our proposed rule, the EPA proposed to approve some
infrastructure elements and to take no action on others for the 2010
SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS from the State's March
7, 2013 and August 23, 2015 certifications,\1\ respectively. In this
rulemaking, we are taking final action to approve those infrastructure
elements from the State's certifications for which we proposed
approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Where an air agency determines that the provisions in or
referred to by its existing EPA approved SIP are adequate with
respect to a given infrastructure SIP element (or sub element) even
in light of the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the air
agency may make a SIP submission in the form of a certification.''
EPA's ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2),'' September
13, 2013, at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Response to Comments

    No comments were received on our June 29, 2017 notice of proposed
rulemaking.

III. Final Action

    For reasons expressed in the proposed rule, the EPA is taking final
action to approve infrastructure elements from the State's
certifications as shown in Table 1. Elements we are taking no action on
are reflected in Table 2.

 Table 1--List of North Dakota Infrastructure Elements and Revisions the
                            EPA Is Approving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 7, 2013 submittal--2010 SO2 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)
 prongs 3 and 4, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M).
August 23, 2015 submittal--2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)
 prongs 3 and 4, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2--List of North Dakota Infrastructure Elements and Revisions That
                     the EPA Is Taking No Action On
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      No action (revision to be made in separate rulemaking action)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 7, 2013 submittal--2010 SO2 NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2.
August 23, 2015 submittal--2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 5, 2017. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA Section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse
gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: September 18, 2017.
Suzanne J. Bohan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart JJ--North Dakota

0
2. Section 52.1833 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1833  Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) The North Dakota Department of Health provided submissions to
meet infrastructure requirements for the State of North Dakota for the
2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on March 7, 2013
and August 23, 2015, respectively. The State's Infrastructure SIP for
the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS is approved
with respect to section (110)(a)(1) and the following elements of
section (110)(a)(2): (A), (B), (C) with respect to minor NSR and PSD
requirements, (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L),
and (M).

[FR Doc. 2017-21520 Filed 10-5-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 207 (Friday, October 29, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59857-59858]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23545]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R01-OAR-2021-0265; FRL-8861-01-R1]

Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated
Facilities and Pollutants: Massachusetts; 111(d)/129 Revised State Plan
for Large Municipal Waste Combustors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
Clean Air Act State Plan revisions for Large Municipal Waste Combustors
(MWCs) submitted by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (MassDEP) on December 18, 2018. The revised State Plan is in
response to amended emission guidelines (EGs) for Large MWCs
promulgated on May 10, 2006. MassDEP's State Plan is for implementing
and enforcing provisions at least as protective as the EGs applicable
to existing Large MWCs. This action is being taken under the Clean Air
Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 29, 2021. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by
the Director of the Federal Register as of November 29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2021-0265. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and
Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays and facility
closures due to COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shutsu Wong, Air Quality Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square--
Suite 100, (Mail Code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Final Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On May 20, 2021 (86 FR 27350), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
    The NPRM proposed approval of the Clean Air Act State Plan
revisions for Large MWCs submitted by the MassDEP on December 18, 2018.
MassDEP revised the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR),
specifically at 310 CMR 7.08(2) entitled ``Municipal Waste
Combustors,'' and submitted the revised State Plan in response to
amended EGs for Large MWCs promulgated on May 10, 2006. MassDEP's State
Plan is for implementing and enforcing provisions at least as
protective as the EGs applicable to existing Large MWCs.
    Other specific requirements under sections 111(d) and 129 of the
Clean Air Act, and the rationale for EPA's proposed action, are
explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here. No public comments
were received on the NPRM.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving the MassDEP's revised State Plan for existing
Large MWCs.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that uses
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
provisions of 310 CMR 7.08(2), entitled ``Municipal Waste Combustors,''
effective March 9, 2018, excluding the site assignment provisions of
310 CMR 7.08(2)(a), the definition of ``materials separation plan'' at
310 CMR 7.08(2)(c), and the materials separation plan provisions at 310
CMR 7.08(2)(f)8. These provisions establish emission limitations and
requirements for Large MWCs in Massachusetts. In accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a), EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information). This incorporation by reference is approved by the Office
of the Federal Register upon the effective date of this final rule, and
the plan is federally enforceable under the Clean Air Act (CAA) as of
the effective date of this final rulemaking.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
State Plan submittal that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. Clean Air Act sections 111(d) and
129(b); 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cb; and 40 CFR part 62, subpart
A; and 40 CFR 62.04. Thus, in reviewing state plan submissions, EPA's
role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria
of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state
law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);

     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the State Plan is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 28, 2021. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

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

    Dated: October 25, 2021.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 62 as follows:

PART 62--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLAN FOR DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart W--[Amended]

0
2. In subpart W, remove the undesignated center heading ``Plan for the
Control of Designated Pollutants From Existing Facilities (Section
111(d) Plan)''.

0
3. Revise Sec.  62.5340 to read as follows:

Sec.  62.5340  Identification of plan.

    (a) Identification of plan. Massachusetts Plan for the Control of
Designated Pollutants from Existing Plants (Section 111(d) Plan).
    (b) Official submission of plan. Revised State Plan for the control
of metals, acid gases, organic compounds and nitrogen oxide emissions
from existing municipal waste combustors--as submitted December 18,
2018, by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. The
plan includes the regulatory provisions cited in paragraph (d) of this
section, which EPA incorporates by reference.
    (c) Identification of sources. The plan applies to existing sources
in the following categories of sources:
    (1) Municipal waste combustors.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (d) Incorporation by reference. (1) The material incorporated by
reference in this section was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may
obtain copies at the EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Radiation
Division, 5 Post Office Square-Suite 100, Boston, MA,<PHONE_NUMBER> and
from the source listed in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. You may
also inspect the materials at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, email [email protected], or go to:
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    (2) Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection. 1 Winter Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108,
617-292-5500, mass.gov/orgs/massachusetts-department-of-environmental-protection; Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR):
    (i) 310 CMR 7.08(2): Title 310--Department of Environmental
Protection, chapter 7.00--Air Pollution Control, section 7.08--U
Incinerators, paragraph (2) ``Municipal Waste Combustors,'' in effect
March 9, 2018 (as corrected and revised through August 21, 1998),
excluding the following: subparagraph (2)(a) ``Site Assignment''; the
definition of ``materials separation plan'' in subparagraph (2)(c); and
subparagraph (2)(f)8. ``Material Separation Plan''.
    (ii) [Reserved]

Sec.  62.5425   [Amended]

0
4. In Sec.  62.5425, remove and reserve paragraph (a)(1).

[FR Doc. 2021-23545 Filed 10-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P