The EPA received comments supporting the adoption of this proposed language, but several commenters also expressed concern that adding this language to Part 60 alone would not be sufficient. Several commenters urged the EPA to instead revise the PSD regulations in Parts 51 and 52. In addition, commenters expressed concern that further steps were needed to amend the SIPs before there would be certainty that the Tailoring Rule limitations continued to apply after the adoption of GHG standards under section 111 in this final rule.

On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, issued a decision addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions. The Supreme Court held that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source (or modification thereof) required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). The Supreme Court decision effectively upheld PSD permitting requirements for GHG emissions under Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule for "anyway sources" and invalidated application of PSD permitting requirements to Step 2 sources based on GHG emissions. The Court also recognized that, although the EPA had not yet done so, it could "establish an appropriate de minimis threshold below which BACT is not required for a source's greenhouse gas emissions." 134 S. Ct. at 2449.

In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) issued an amended judgment vacating the regulations that implemented Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations that implement Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule. The court specifically vacated sections 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 52.21(b)(49)(v) of the EPA's regulations, but did not vacate sections 51.166(b)(48)(iv) or 52.21(b)(48)(iv). The court also directed the EPA to consider whether any further revisions to its regulations are appropriate in light of UARG v. EPA, and, if so, to undertake to make such revisions.

The practical effect of the Supreme Court's clarification of the reach of the Clean Air Act is that it eliminates the need for Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule and subsequent steps of the phase in that the EPA had planned to consider. This also eliminates the possibility that the promulgation of GHG standards under section 111 could result in additional source becoming subject to PSD based solely on GHGs, notwithstanding the limitations the EPA adopted in the Tailoring Rule. However, for an interim period, the EPA and the states will need to continue applying parts of the PSD definition of "subject to regulation" to ensure that sources obtain PSD permits meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

The Clean Air Act continues to require that PSD permits issued to "anyway sources" satisfy the BACT requirement for GHGs. Based on the language that remains applicable under sections 51.166(b)(48)(iv) and 52.21(b)(49)(iv), the EPA and states may continue to limit the application of BACT to GHG emissions in those circumstances where a source emits GHGs in the amount of at least 75,000 tpy on a CO2e basis. The EPA's intention is for this to serve as an interim approach while the EPA moves forward to propose a GHG Significant Emission Rate that would establish a de minimis threshold level for permitting GHG emissions under PSD. As part of this proposed rule, the EPA intends to propose restructuring the GHG provisions in its PSD regulations so that the de minimis threshold for GHGs will not reside within the definition of "subject to regulation." This restructuring will be designed to make the PSD regulatory provisions on GHGs universally applicable, without regard to the particular subparts of the definition of "regulated NSR pollutant" that may cover GHGs. This revised rule will then provide a framework that states may use when updating their SIPs consistent with the Supreme Court decision.

While the rulemaking described above is pending, the EPA and approved state, local, and tribal permitting authorities will still need to implement the BACT requirement for GHGs. In order to enable permitting authorities to continue applying the 75,000 tpy CO2e threshold to determine whether BACT applies to GHG emissions from an "anyway source" after GHGs are subject to regulation under section 111, the EPA has concluded that it continues to be appropriate to adopt the proposed language in section 60.5515 (subpart TTTT). Because the EPA is not finalizing the proposed regulations in subparts Da and KKKK, it is not necessary to adopt the comparable provisions that the EPA proposed in sections 60.46Da(j) and 60.4315(b).

The EPA has evaluated section 60.5515 in light of the Supreme Court decision and the comments received on the question of whether this section 111 standard will undermine the application of the Tailoring Rule limitations. While most of the Tailoring Rule limitations are no longer needed to avoid triggering the requirement to obtain a PSD permit based on GHGs alone, the limitation in sections 51.166(b)(48)(iv) and 52.21(b)(49)(iv) will remain important to provide an interim applicability level for the GHG BACT requirement in "anyway source" PSD permits. Thus, there continues to be a need to ensure that the regulation of GHGs under section 111 does not make this BACT applicability level for anyway sources effectively inoperable. The language in section 60.5515 will continue to be effective at avoiding this result after the judicial actions described above and the adoption of this final rule. The provisions in part 60 reference sections 51.166(b)(48) and 52.21(b)(49) of the EPA's regulations. However, the courts have now vacated sections 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 52.21(b)(49)(v), and the EPA will take steps soon to eliminate these subparts from the Code of Federal Regulations. As a result of these steps, the language of final section 60.5515 will not incorporate the vacated parts of sections 51.166(b)(48) and 52.21(b)(49), but these provisions in Part 60 will continue to apply to those subparts of the PSD rules that are needed on an interim basis to limit application of BACT to GHGs only when emitted by an anyway source in amounts of 75,000 tpy CO2e or more. Thus, in this final rule, the EPA is adopting the proposed text of section 60.5515 for this purpose without substantial change.

As to the concern expressed by some commenters that revisions to Part 60 alone are not sufficient, the rulemaking described above will include proposed revisions to the PSD regulations in part 51 and 52 that should ultimately address this concern. The EPA acknowledges that the commenters concern will not be fully addressed for an interim period of time, but (for the reasons discuss above) the Part 60 provisions adopted in this rule are sufficient to make explicit that the 75,000 tpy CO2e BACT applicability level for GHGs will apply to GHGs that are subject to regulation under the section 111 standards adopted in this rule.

Rather than adopting a temporary patch in its PSD regulations in this rule to address the implications for PSD of regulating GHGs under section 111, the EPA believes it will most efficient for the EPA and the states if the EPA completes a comprehensive PSD rule that will address all the implications of the Supreme Court decision. The revisions the EPA will consider based on the Supreme Court decision will inherently address the commenters concerns about the definition of the "subject to regulation" and the proposed Part 60 provisions. To the extent this PSD rule is not complete before the EPA proposes additional section 111 standards for GHGs, the EPA will need to consider adding provisions like section 60.5515 to other subparts of part 60. In a separate rulemaking finalized concurrently with this rule, the EPA is also finalizing corresponding edits to 40 CFR 60.5705 in Subpart UUUU to clarify that the regulated pollutant is the same for both the CAA section 111(b) and section 111(d) rules. As of this time, the EPA has not proposed GHG standards for other source categories under section 111. To the extent needed, this approach of adding provisions to a few subparts in Part 60 would be less burdensome to states and more efficient than revising section 51.166 at this time solely to address the implications of regulating GHGs under section 111.

The EPA understands that many commenters expressed concerned that PSD SIPs would also have to be amended to address the implications of regulating GHGs under section 111. However, the language in section 60.5515 is designed to avoid the need for states to make revisions to the PSD regulations in their SIPs at this time. The EPA has previously observed that the form of each pollutant regulated under the PSD program is derived from the form of the pollutant described in regulations, such as an NSPS, that make the pollutant regulated under the Clean Air Act. See 56 FR 24468, 24470 (May 30, 1991); 61 FR 9905, 9912-18 (Mar. 12, 1996); 75 FR at 31522.

Moreover, it is more likely that states would need to consider a SIP revision if the EPA were to revise section 51.166 in this rule. Revisions to 51.166 can trigger requirements for states to revise their PSD program provisions under section 51.166(a)(6).

Given the process required in states to review their SIPs and submit them to the EPA for approval, it is most efficient for all concerned when the EPA is able consolidate its revisions to section 51.166. The EPA, thus, believes it will be less work for states if we issue a comprehensive set of rules addressing regulation of GHGs under the PSD program after the Supreme Court decision.

In comments on the proposed rules, states generally did not express concern that the proposed revisions to Part 60 were insufficient to avoid the need for SIP revisions. In our proposal, we addressed any state with an approved PSD SIP program that applies to GHGs which believed that this final rule would require the state to revise its SIP so that the Tailoring Rule thresholds continue to apply. First, the EPA encouraged any state that considered such revisions necessary to make them as soon as possible. Second, if the state could do so promptly, the EPA said it would assess whether to proceed with a separate rulemaking action to narrow its approval of that state's SIP so as to assure that, for federal purposes, the Tailoring Rule thresholds will continue to apply as of the effective date of the final NSPS rule. 79 FR 1487. The EPA did not receive any comments or other feedback from states requesting that the EPA narrow their program to ensure the Tailoring Rule thresholds continue to apply after promulgating this rule. We do not believe such action will be necessary in any state after the Supreme Court decision and our action in this rule to adopt the proposed Part 60 provisions in this final rule for purposes of ensuring the Step 1 BACT applicability level for GHGs continues to apply on an interim basis.

Under the title V program, certain stationary sources, including "major sources" are required to obtain an operating permit. This permit includes all of the CAA requirements applicable to the source, including adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to assure sources' compliance. These permits are generally issued through the EPA-approved State title V programs, though the EPA also issues title V permits to sources located in certain areas, such as tribal lands, through the permitting program contained in 40 CFR Part 71.

In the January 8, 2014 proposal, the EPA discussed whether this rulemaking would impact the applicability of title V requirements to major sources of GHGs. 79 FR at 1489-90. The relevant issue for title V purposes was, in essence, whether promulgation of CAA section 111 requirements for GHGs would undermine the Tailoring Rule, which, as explained above, phased in permitting requirements for GHG emissions for stationary sources under the CAA PSD and title V permitting programs. Based on the EPA's understanding of the CAA at that time, the proposal discussed this issue in the context of the regulatory and statutory definitions of "major source," focusing on revisions that had been made in the Tailoring Rule to the definitions in the title V regulations of "major source" and "subject to regulation." 79 FR at 1489-90 (quoting 75 FR 31,583). Under the title V regulations, as revised by the Tailoring Rule, "major source" is defined to include, in relevant part, "a major stationary source ... that directly emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tpy or more of any air pollutant subject to regulation." The proposal further explained that the GHG threshold that had been established in the Tailoring Rule had been incorporated into the definition of "subject to regulation" under 40 CFR 70.2 and 71.2, such that those definitions specify "`that GHGs are not subject to regulation for purposes of defining a major source, unless as of July 1, 2011, the emissions of GHGs are from a source emitting or having the potential to emit 100,000 tpy of GHGs on a CO2e basis.'" Id. (quoting 75 FR 31,583). The proposal thus concluded that the title V definition of "major source," as revised by the Tailoring Rule, did not on its face distinguish among types of regulatory triggers for title V. It further noted that the title V program had already been triggered for GHGs, and thus concluded that the promulgation of CAA section 111 requirements would not further impact title V applicability requirements for major sources of GHGs. 79 FR at 1489-90.

As noted elsewhere in this section, after the proposal for this rulemaking was published, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in UARG v. EPA, 134 S.Ct. 2427 (June 23, 2014), and in accordance with that decision, the D.C. Circuit subsequently issued an amended judgment in Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, Nos. 09-1322, 10-073, 10-1092 and 10-1167 (D.C. Cir., April 10, 2015). Those decisions support the same overall conclusion as the EPA discussed in the proposal, though for different reasons.

With respect to title V, the Supreme Court said in UARG v EPA that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a title V operating permit. In accordance with that decision, the D.C. Circuit's amended judgment in Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, vacated the title V regulations under review in that case to the extent that they require a stationary source to obtain a title V permit solely because the source emits or has the potential to emit GHGs above the applicable major source thresholds. The D.C. Circuit also directed the EPA to consider whether any further revisions to its regulations are appropriate in light of UARG v. EPA, and, if so, to undertake to make such revisions. These court decisions make clear that promulgation of CAA section 111 requirements for GHGs will not result in the EPA imposing a requirement that stationary sources obtain a title V permit solely because such sources emit or have the potential to emit GHGs above the applicable major source thresholds.

With respect to the public comments that the proposed rule could undercut the Tailoring Rule because it could trigger title V permitting obligations for GHG or CO2 at the statutory major source thresholds, the EPA does not agree that this would result. As explained elsewhere in this rule, after the Supreme Court's decision in UARG v EPA, the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a title V operating permit. The EPA intends to conduct future rulemaking action to make the appropriate revisions to the operating permit rules to respond to the Supreme Court decision and the D.C. Circuit's amended judgment after that decision. To the extent there are any issues related to the potential interaction between the promulgation of CAA section 111 requirements for GHGs and title V applicability based on emissions above major source thresholds, the EPA expects that those revisions to the title V provisions would inherently address them. There will also be an opportunity for the Agency to consider, and for the public to raise, any such issues during that rulemaking. The EPA believes that it is more efficient to address any such issues in a comprehensive fashion through that rulemaking. With respect to commenters' concerns about potential implications for the Tailoring Rule regulatory thresholds for title V, to the extent that those thresholds remain in place, the EPA does not believe that this rulemaking should undermine those thresholds for the reasons explained in the proposal. 79 FR at 1489-90.

To be clear, however, unless exempted by the Administrator through regulation under CAA section 502(a), any source, including an area source (a "non-major source"), subject to an NSPS is required to apply for, and operate pursuant to, a title V permit that assures compliance with all applicable CAA requirements for the source, including any GHG-related applicable requirements. This aspect of the title V program is not affected by UARG v. EPA, as the EPA does not read that decision to affect either the grounds other than those described above on which a title V permit may be required or the applicable requirements that must be addressed in title V permits. Consistent with the proposal, the EPA has concluded that this rule will not affect non-major sources and there is no need to consider whether to exempt non-major sources. Thus, sources that are subject to the CAA section 111 standards promulgated today are required to apply for, and operate pursuant to, a title V permit that assures compliance with all applicable CAA requirements, including any GHG-related applicable requirements.

Title V Permitting Fees
One commenter (10554) stated that the NSPS rulemaking is not the proper place to propose a change to the fee calculation methods under the operating permit rules.
One commenter (9198) stated that the EPA's decision to address title V fees for GHGs for a broad range of stationary sources that are not limited to EGUs within the proposed GHG NSPS rulemaking may result in fewer commenters having knowledge of the proposed approach and the opportunity to comment, as compared to a separate rulemaking dedicated exclusively to fees. Another commenter (9666) believes permitting authorities may not provide detailed comments on this rulemaking action because the NSPS is limited to a single source category, so some states and sources in other source categories may be unaware that this notice contains a part 70 presumptive minimum cost adjustment proposal.

One commenter (9198) stated that GHGs emitted from biogenic sources present unique considerations and will affect a broad range of stationary sources. The commenter believes GHG emissions from biogenic sources must be specifically considered in the fee context and that a separate rulemaking would better facilitate these considerations, so long as the separate rulemaking could be completed before GHGs became regulated pollutants for the purposes of title V fee requirements.

One commenter (9648) stated that the proposal was too vague and not defined enough for states to comment on the details of any of the proposed GHG "cost adjustment" options.
Despite adverse comments on the use of this NSPS rulemaking to revise the Title V fee rules, the EPA believes it is appropriate to move forward with final action amending the title V fee regulations as part of this rulemaking action. As we explained in the preamble for the proposal and elsewhere in the final rule, if we do not revise the fee rules, promulgation of the final NSPS will trigger certain requirements related to title V fees for GHG emissions that the EPA believes will result in the collection of excessive fees in states that implement the presumptive minimum approach and in the part 71 program. Thus, it is important to finalize the revisions to the fee rules at the same time or prior to this NSPS. The EPA further believes that it is within the EPA's discretion to address the NSPS and the fee rules at the same time as part of the same rulemaking action.
In response to the commenters who were concerned that including the fee rule proposal as part of the NSPS proposal would result in the public not having sufficient opportunity to comment, the EPA believes sufficient opportunities were provided on the fee rule changes because the proposal met all applicable public participation requirements and we conducted additional public outreach, including to state and local permitting authorities, on the fee rule proposal. In addition to the publication of the proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, the EPA held numerous hearings, reached out to state partners and the public, and developed numerous fact sheets and other information to support public comment on this rule. The EPA has complied with the applicable public participation requirements and executive orders. We received many comments on the proposal to revise the fee rule for operating permits programs, and we are taking those comments into consideration in the finalization of the rulemaking action.

In response to the comment that GHG emissions from biogenic sources must be considered in the fee context and that a separate rulemaking would better facilitate these considerations, we disagree for several reasons. There are no statutory requirements with respect to the treatment of fees for GHG from biogenic sources, we made no specific proposal related to the treatment of GHG from biogenic sources with respect to fees and the final rule makes no distinctions with respect to the type of sources that are subject to fees. We explain in response 9.7.4 of this RTC the reasons we believe the consideration of title V fee issues related to GHGs from biogenic sources do not necessitate any delays in finalizing this rule. Also, it is within the EPA's discretion for rulemaking to not conduct a separate rulemaking action to address any fee considerations with respect to biogenic sources as we explain in response to comment grouping 1 of this RTC.

The EPA also disagrees that its proposal was impermissibly vague. The EPA provided a thorough discussion of our rationale in the proposal, including the basis for the GHG adjustments, and we proposed regulatory text to implement our proposal. We explained in the proposal that support for the cost adjustment for GHGs under option 1 is contained in several analyses performed by the EPA and approved by the OMB related to the effect of the addressing GHG requirements in operating permits. These analyses have been placed in the docket for this rulemaking. The analyses include: the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) for the Tailoring Rule (see Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, Final Report, May 2010); the part 70 ICR change request for the Tailoring Rule (which was based on the RIA for the Tailoring Rule); and the current ICR for part 70 (EPA ICR number 1587.12; OMB control number 2060 - 0243).
Several commenters (3862, 9198, 9381, 9425, 9504, 9591, 9666, 10023, 10048) supported the proposal to exempt GHGs from presumptive fee calculations. Many of these commenters agreed that using the existing fee rate for GHGs would be inappropriate because it would result in excessive fees, far above the reasonable costs of a title V permit program. The commenter also added that states that believe that the presumptive minimum is not adequate can exercise their right to establish a different schedule. The commenter stated that EPA's finalization of the GHG exemption would facilitate states not needing to forgo use of the presumptive minimum approach and develop alternative fee schedules simply to avoid collection of fees that may not be needed. Supporter (9504) pointed to Congress's exclusion of CO from fee requirements because of high emission rates compared to conventional pollutants as support for the GHG exemption and stated that the issuance of the NSPS for GHGs could trigger title V permits fee in excess of $47 a ton of GHGs emitted by any permittee.
On the other hand, some commenters (8909, 9730, and 10394) opposed the proposed GHG exemption because they believe exempting GHGs from fee calculations may negatively impact the state' ability to recover fees sufficient to cover all title V permitting program costs. One commenter (9739) added that some states are barred from exceeding minimum requirements imposed by the EPA and finalizing the GHG exemption may hinder states' ability to collect fees sufficient to fund their operating permit programs. One commenter (10017) further stated that EPA's proposed approach departs from 40 CFR §70.9, and that the fees implemented for CO2 should be based on the same $25/ton presumptive minimum approach used for other title V pollutants, since this approach is consistent and provides a baseline nationwide for funding the title V program.
The EPA is taking final action to revise the definition of regulated pollutant (for presumptive fee calculation) in 40 CFR §70.2 and regulated pollutant (for fee calculation) in 40 CFR §71.2 to exempt GHG emissions. This regulatory amendment will have the effect of excluding GHG emissions from being subject to the dollar per ton ($/ton) fee rate set for the presumptive minimum calculation requirement of part 70 and the fee calculation requirements of part 71. The majority of comments received on the exemption issue were supportive, including from state and local permitting authorities. We are finalizing this portion of the proposal for the same reasons we explained in the preambles to the proposed and final rule notices, including that leaving these regulations unchanged would have resulted in the collection of fee revenue far beyond the reasonable costs of an operating permit program. The EPA believes that these revisions (in conjunction with the GHG adjustment) are consistent with the CAA requirements of section 502(b)(3)(B)(i).
The EPA disagrees with the adverse comments that some states are not allowed to do anything beyond the minimum floor set by EPA and that following the $25/ton approach for GHGs is consistent with and provides a nationwide baseline for fees. On the first adverse comment, part 70 allows any state to use either the presumptive minimum approach of §70.9(b)(2) or the detailed accounting approach of §70.9(b)(5). States using the presumptive minimum approach must collect at least the minimum fee revenue target, but they are free to collect more than the minimum, and a state must collect more than the minimum if the minimum would not be sufficient to fully fund all the state's part 70 program costs. Any state that wishes to set a fee revenue target below the minimum may switch to the detailed accounting approach, provided the detailed approach results in sufficient funding for the program. Also, on the second adverse comment, the Act does not require the calculation of $25/ton multiplied by tons of regulated pollutants (for presumptive fee calculation) to necessarily be the only way that a state may demonstrate it has sufficient funding for the program, even if the state uses the presumptive minimum approach. CAA section 502(b)(3(B)(i) allows the EPA to approve a state program that collects at least the presumptive minimum "or such other amount as the Administrator may determine reflects the reasonable costs of the permit program" and the "or such other amount" provision is the statutory basis for the detailed accounting approach of part 70 and the GHG adjustment we are making to the presumptive minimum approach of part 70 to account for GHG permitting costs.
Several commenters (10240, 9730, 8909, 5537, 8957, 9646, 10394, 10095, 10243, 10619; 9317; 9423; 9765; 8213) supported the EPA's proposal to allow states to set their own fee schedules to provide various ways for fees to be charged to sources. One commenter (5537) stated that states should have the flexibility to decide how to charge title V fees according to their own circumstances, including not charging any fees based on GHG emissions if a state already collects sufficient fees to meet the program support requirements. One commenter (10243) recommended that the EPA preserve flexibility for states to develop their own fee collection process and asked that states be allowed the option of making no GHG adjustment if existing fees are adequate to cover the additional costs of GHG permitting. The commenter stated that, since most sources would already be subject to part 70 for other pollutants, the incremental costs for GHG permitting are minimal and  significant additional fees should not be needed to cover the reasonable costs of an operating permit program. One commenter (9198) supported the EPA's determination that it will not require fees for GHGs if a state can demonstrate that its fees are sufficient to cover the reasonable costs of its operating permit program, and not to propose any new requirements for states that do not use the presumptive minimum approach.
One commenter (10095) stated that the EPA should not require states to adopt the proposed alternatives to the presumptive minimum approach, and that the EPA should continue to provide flexibility in developing fee structures to states that do not use the presumptive fee approach. One commenter (9507) stated that part 70 states should be allowed to determine the level of effort required to satisfy these requirements and charge for those services accordingly.

One commenter (10394) stated that in the commenter's state, a recently enacted proposition limits fees that state or local government can charge to no more than necessary to cover reasonable regulatory costs. Therefore, in order to be able to make this showing, the commenter believes that the EPA should provide the flexibility to the state to base the cost of fee adjustment on either option 1 or 2 to cover the costs of the state. Therefore, the commenter requested that the EPA leave open the option of establishing fees based on time and materials or on an emissions basis, for local and state agencies that choose either route to establish their fees.
As explained in the final preamble, the EPA believes the final rule will not limit states' flexibility to charge fees to particular sources in order for them to collect annual revenue from all sources that they have determined would be sufficient to fully fund the program. See CAA §502(b)(3); 40 CFR §70.9(b)(3).
If a state does not wish to use the presumptive minimum approach of part 70 to demonstrate they have sufficient funding for the program, it may use the "detailed accounting" approach instead. The detailed accounting approach involves a state-specific demonstration "that collecting an amount less than the [presumptive minimum amount] will" result in the collection of funds sufficient to cover the costs of the program. If a state believes that the existing fee collection is sufficient to fully cover program costs, they collect no more than the minimum required under the originally promulgated presumptive minimum approach [$25/ton multiplied by regulated pollutants (for presumptive fee calculation), without a GHG adjustment], and they do not wish to adopt the GHG adjustment required by the final rule, then the state must switch to the detailed accounting approach. Such a switch will trigger a requirement for the state to submit a program revision to the EPA. Among other elements, the program revision submittal must include a demonstration that the amount they will collect will be sufficient to fully fund the program.

Also, as described previously in this section of the RTC, a state always has flexibility under the presumptive minimum approach to collect more revenue than the absolute minimum allowed, so if a state has adopted the presumptive minimum approach and it currently charges more than the minimum, the state may continue to use the presumptive approach if the amount they will collect in the future would continue to meet or exceed the revised presumptive minimum of the final rule.

The EPA believes that most states that implement the presumptive minimum approach will likely need to make alterations to their title V fee collection system in order to comply with the EPA's final rule.

The EPA notes that the final rule does not revise any fee requirements for states that rely on the detailed accounting approach. However, these states must ensure that their fee collection programs are sufficient to fully fund all reasonable costs of the operating permit program, including costs attributable to GHG-related permitting. The EPA suggests states that use the detailed accounting approach consider the 7 percent assumption for the costs of GHG permitting in any such analysis, consistent with the EPA analysis of options 1 and 2 in the proposal.
Several commenters (9425, 9507, 9780, and 10660) generally supported the concept of increasing permitting fees to cover the costs of GHG permitting. One commenter (10619) stated that they have no objection to the alternative GHG adjustment approaches. Another commenter (9591) stated that fees should only be increased to the extent necessary to cover the increased cost of GHG permitting. One commenter (9425) stated that any fees associated with CO2 emissions should cover the cost of processing CO2 permitting only and not be used to supplement other title V program costs. One commenter (9507) agreed that the title V fee program is a suitable mechanism for funding incremental program costs associated with new source standards or new source permitting attributable to GHG rules. The commenter noted that these costs, to the extent they exist, should properly be covered by permit application fees and borne by proposed new source project developers.
Several commenters did not support any cost adjustment to account for the additional costs of GHG permitting. One commenter (9666) stated that the EPA has not provided adequate support for a conclusion that a cost adjustment procedure is necessary to ensure that fees collected will be sufficient under the presumptive minimum approach. One commenter (10554) argued that no cost adjustment is needed, but stated that if EPA finalizes a GHG cost adjustment, any additional fees charged should be consistent with the incremental costs of GHG permitting and should be used solely for the title V program. One commenter (9780) stated that before finalizing any adjustment option, the EPA should consider whether current fees already cover some or all of the costs of GHG permitting, and that fees should only be increased enough to cover the actual costs that are not currently covered. One commenter also suggested that GHGs can be excluded from fees entirely because permitting costs are presumably covered by existing fees, because there are a minimal number of GHG permit terms for incorporation in title V permits, facilities with GHG PSD permits may already have title V permits, the GHG Emission Reporting (40 CFR. part 98) requirements are excluded from permits, and there are no current GHG technology standards. One commenter (9780) alleged that current fees are already sufficient to cover the costs of adding new CO2 requirements under section 111 into permits, rendering any fee adjustment unnecessary. Another commenter (9198) argued that no GHG adjustment is needed because sources with GHGs will also have emissions of non-GHGs subject to fees, and the costs of permitting will be accounted for without charging additional fees related to GHGs. One commenter asserted that the GHG emission limit components of most title V permits are likely to be "hollow," because in most cases, they will not require additional control technologies other than those that would already be required to control other pollutants. Moreover, the commenter argued, costs of state agencies and the EPA of inventorying GHG emissions for title V purposes are zero because GHGs must already be reported under the EPA's Mandatory GHG Reporting Rules.

One commenter (9198) stated that they do not believe there is a sufficient basis at this time to evaluate the fee implications of GHG emissions, especially where the EPA has not finalized an approach to account for GHG emissions from biogenic sources. Further, the commenter questions whether the EPA has received sufficient input from states and whether states are able to quantify incremental costs associated with GHGs, given the nascent state of GHG permitting. Finally, the commenter is concerned that cost adjustments based on GHG emissions will impose a financial burden on sources that emit GHGs in addition to fees they already pay for non-GHGs. One commenter (10618) stated that the EPA has not demonstrated that any adjustments are necessary given that the proposed NSPS will not expand the universe of sources subject to regulation, EGUs and other sources would already be subject to title V based on non-GHGs that are subject to fees, and there is no basis to conclude that the current fees are inadequate.

Another commenter (10660) stated that the EPA should exclude GHGs from the presumptive fee calculation and make no other GHG fee adjustments before the development and finalization of Step 4 of the Tailoring Rule. The commenter argued that there is currently no basis to charge additional fees to account for GHG permitting expenses, but after Step 4 of the Tailoring Rule is finalized, the EPA may be able to justify adjusting the permitting thresholds. The commenter noted that finalization of Step 4 of the Tailoring Rule will lower the GHG applicability thresholds and increase the number of PSD permits and sources subject to title V permitting, which may potentially warrant the addition of a fee to cover GHG permitting costs.

Several supporters (9666, 10048, and 10023) stated that the EPA should leave the issue of any cost adjustment to a future rulemaking under part 70 when broader notice can be provided, and additional information on actual costs will be available from, for example, the update of the ICR for the part 70 rule.
As explained in the proposed rule and the final preamble, the EPA has determined that some adjustment to cost and fee accounting is important because the recent addition of GHG emissions to the operating permitting program does add new burdens for permitting authorities. Although GHG adjustment option 3 (no GHG permitting fee adjustments) was supported by many industrial commenters, the EPA rejected it because it is in tension with the statutory requirement that permitting authorities collect sufficient fees to cover all the reasonable costs of permitting. See CAA section 502(b)(3)(A). Consistent with CAA §502(b)(3)(B)(i), the Administrator has determined that the final rule's approach of exempting GHG emissions from fee-related calculations and accounting for the GHG permitting costs through option 1 will result in fees that will cover the reasonable costs of the permitting programs.
To the extent that commenters intended to argue that the adjustments we proposed would exceed the actual costs of GHG permitting, no commenters provided any information or analysis to support that position. Some commenters did state that the costs associated with GHG-related permitting should be minimal because few or no applicable requirements will apply to GHGs. As stated earlier in this notice, EPA's cost estimate for the proposal concerned the incremental costs of GHG permitting for any source, not just those that would have, at the time of the analysis, triggered the requirement to get a permit based on GHG emissions or applicable requirements.

Concerning the comment that the costs to state agencies and the EPA for inventorying GHG emissions for title V purposes are zero because GHGs must already be reported under the EPA's Mandatory GHG Reporting Rules, we disagree because the title V and GHG reporting rules do not require GHG emissions to be measured in the same manner and for the same sources. For example, the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule generally requires reporting of actual emissions, but not for all types of sources that may be required to get a title V permit, while the title V rules generally require emissions to be reported in terms of actual emissions and/or potential to emit.
In response to the statements that any GHG cost adjustment should be limited to the costs of adding the NSPS for EGUs into a permit and that there are no costs for Title V because the costs are covered under the PSD programs, the EPA disagreed with these statements. The GHG adjustment of the final rule do not include the costs of implementing particular standards, such as any particular NSPS, or other permitting requirements, such as PSD permitting requirements, through title V permits. Rather, as noted previously, the GHG cost adjustment is designed to account for the incremental cost of analysis to address the GHG emissions and applicable requirements for any source.

Despite some comments received to the contrary, the EPA does not believe it is appropriate to delay the finalization of the GHG adjustment. The EPA does not believe such delays would be consistent with CAA § 502(b)(3)(A) because states have been incurring costs attributable to GHG permitting for several years now and increased fees must be collected to cover the increased costs. The regulatory changes being finalized in this action provide the states with optimal flexibility and sufficient funding to implement their operating permit programs. Concerning the request for delay based on the completion of the next ICR renewal process, we respond additionally that the ICR renewal process is not required to be completed until after the time that EPA intends to finalize this rulemaking, and we have adequate information at this time to make GHG adjustments to title V programs costs; thus, we will not delay the adjustments until the next ICR renewal is completed.

Concerning the Tailoring Rule, subsequent to the Supreme Court's decision in UARG v. EPA, the EPA provided next steps and preliminary views on the application of Clean Air Act permitting programs to GHGs in a July 24, 2014 memorandum. In the memorandum the EPA explained that it does not intend to take further action on "Step 4" of the Tailoring Rule.  As explained in the preamble to the final rule, the EPA believes that it currently has a sufficient basis to finalize the revisions we are making to the fee provisions of the title V rules and we do not believe that we need to wait until the finalization of Step 4 of the Tailoring Rule before taking this final action with respect to fees.  The EPA's review of the effect of the Supreme Court decision on the burden hour assumptions for the GHG review activities under proposed option 1 is that the effects are not significant enough to warrant revision of the burden hour assumptions in the final rule. Proposed option 1 was based on the assumption that permitting authorities would need to evaluate all permit applications for initial permit issuance, significant and minor permit modifications, and permit renewals for GHG issues (even if there are no applicable GHG requirements). Even after the UARG v. EPA decision, permitting authorities will continue to need to evaluate for GHG issues for sources applying for a title V permit and for permit modifications and renewals for existing permits, and we do not anticipate that the decision will significantly affect the total number of such evaluations that will occur in any given year compared to the assumptions in our analysis, which were based on the incremental costs of GHG permitting for any source. Thus, we are finalizing the burden hour assumptions as they were proposed. See NSPS proposal at 1494 and the supporting statement for the 2012 part 70 ICR renewal. Also, as discussed previously, we remain committed to collecting and analyzing additional data on costs and we may adjust the burden hour assumptions or other aspects of option 1 in a future rulemaking, if needed.

Concerning the request for delay related to developing an approach for biogenic CO2, the fee rule changes being finalized in this action will not be affected by any subsequent EPA's decisions regarding the treatment of biogenic sources. The fee provisions of the final rule do not depend on the type of source or its emissions. Also, the EPA notes that the term "GHG" includes CO2 as a constituent.

Finally concerning requests for delays to collect additional information to set fee adjustments for GHGs, the EPA notes that we believe we have an adequate basis for making the GHG adjustments at this time, as we explain in response 9.7-1 of this RTC, and we remain committed to collecting and analyzing additional data on costs attributable to GHG permitting for operating permit programs. We may adjust the GHG cost adjustments in future rulemakings if necessary to comply with the requirements of the Act.
One commenter (9504) stated that they generally agree with EPA's proposal to include an additional cost for each GHG-related activity of certain types that a permitting authority would process (option 1) to the extent that it is used to cover the cost of incorporating new permit terms for newly applicable NSPS requirements or new GHG requirements, but the commenter does not support codifying option 1. The commenter does not understand why incorporation of new PSD GHG requirements in a permit would require much additional effort, but incorporation of the NSPS standards into a permit might be more difficult than the EPA proposes, and that there would be no additional administrative burden for administering fees. One commenter (8909) stated that basing the cost adjustment on activities performed by states is more appropriate than on a cost-per-ton basis. One commenter (10660) that supports option 1 recommended that the EPA set a maximum number of annual hours that can be used to set a fee under option 1, which would overstate the actual costs of the program. If option one is finalized, the fees should be "annualized," since most of the activities do not occur on an annual basis.
Regarding the three activities that the EPA proposed to include in its alternative fee calculation, some commenters (9730; 8909; 9646; 9765) stated the list is not comprehensive. The commenters noted that all three of the activities are associated with the writing of title V permits. The commenters alleged that the proposed list of activities does not address the burden of public notice and the significant resources required if hearings are requested and held or the costs of managing and enforcing the title V program as reflected in Section 502(b)(3)(A) of the CAA and the EPA regulations at 40 C.F.R. 70.9(b)(1), both of which list specific costs that title V fees are to cover. The commenters noted that these statutory and regulatory provisions include, for example, the costs of implementing and enforcing the terms of title V permits, tracking emissions, and compliance reporting. The commenters argued that the GHG adjustment should be based on the existing statutory list rather than the less-comprehensive list of activities proposed by the EPA.

Another commenter (8957) recommended the EPA include title V implementation costs such as inspection, enforcement, emission testing, emissions monitoring and tracking.

A separate commenter (9504) stated that the EPA should only list activities to account for permitting authorities to review and act upon an application for a title V permit renewal and incorporation and/or modification of title V permits with new applicable requirements at the time of permit renewal.
The EPA is finalizing GHG adjustment option 1 because we believe it will result in a system for the calculation of costs for part 70 and fees for part 71 that is most directly related to the costs of GHG permitting.
The EPA is also finalizing the list of activities as proposed, aside from a minor revision of the regulatory text for the second activity, and some clarifications of the meaning of the first and second activities, to ensure consistent implementation of the fee provisions.

Several commenters asked for certain specific GHG-related activities to be added to the three activities we proposed under option 1, including providing public notice, conducting hearings, tracking emissions, managing the program, undertaking enforcement, and compliance costs. The EPA directs commenters to the information provided in the part 70 ICR and RIA for the Tailoring Rule, which the Agency used as a resource in estimating the increased burden to permitting authorities associated with GHG permitting. The ICR change request for the part 70 rule with respect to the Tailoring Rule, approved by OMB, clarifies that the EPA included public notice and hearings in the estimates for the activities of "GHG completeness determinations (for initial permit or updated applications)," and the OMB change request also notes that "GHG evaluations for a permit modification" and "GHG evaluation at permit renewal" were also increased by a percentage to account for all underlying tasks necessary to perform such activities, which would include public notice and hearing, if required for the activity. With respect to tracking emissions, enforcement and compliance costs, managing the program, inspection, emissions testing and emissions monitoring, the EPA did not propose specific incremental GHG costs for these activities because the RIA for the Tailoring Rule, and the part 70 ICRs did not find any incremental GHG burden for these activities. The current part 70 ICR includes many of these activities in the baseline burden under "program administration," "reviewing monitoring and compliance certification reports," and "annual enforcement activity reporting" (see page 9 and Table 2 in the current part 70 ICR). The RIA for the Tailoring Rule also did not determine there was any incremental GHG burden for "emissions testing and emissions monitoring." The EPA also notes that these activities are typically costs for subject sources that are required by underlying emissions standards, rather than costs for permitting authorities, and GHGs are not subject to any ambient standards that may require permitting authorities to conduct background emissions monitoring for ambient impact assessment purposes.

The EPA disagrees with the comment that there would be no additional costs for GHG permitting because incorporation of PSD GHG requirements into a permit would not require much additional effort and that there would be no additional administrative burden for administering fees. As we have explained in the preambles to the proposed and final rule, the basis for the GHG adjustments is the additional burden for permitting authorities to conduct GHG completeness determinations and GHG evaluation for any initial permit application, permit modification, or permit renewal, regardless of the type of source, its emissions, or its applicable requirements. Also, the EPA found no additional burden for administering fee requirements in its analysis of additional burdens for GHG permitting. See response 9.7-1 of this RTC for more on the basis for the EPA proposed GHG adjustments.

Concerning the fee being "annualized," it is unclear to what the commenter is referring because the preamble clearly explained that the GHG adjustments would be added to current fee calculation provisions of the part 70 and 71 rules, which require annual calculations.

One commenter was concerned that the activity-based adjustments we proposed (option 1) would overstate the actual costs of the programs and recommended that the EPA set a maximum number of annual hours to be charged to sources (we assume the purpose of this would be to cap the annual GHG fee adjustment for a given state or source). In response to this concern and for other reasons, we made one minor revision to the regulatory text of the second activity and we make certain clarifications as to the meaning of the certain of the activities listed in the final rules. These clarifications and revisions will serve to limit the GHG adjustment amounts that may be counted in certain circumstances and avoid confusion when states or sources calculate the amounts of the adjustments under the final rules.
      .
The first clarification for the final option 1 approach concerns the activity of "GHG completeness determination (for initial permit or updated application)." We have not revised the regulatory text but we clarify that this activity must be counted for each new initial permit application, even for applications that do not include GHGs emissions or applicable requirements, since an important part of any completeness determination will be to determine that GHG emissions and applicable requirements have been properly addressed, as needed, in the application. This would be a one-time charge that covers the initial application and any supplements or updates. The EPA believes that a single charge for a GHG completeness determination will be adequate to cover the reasonable costs for a permitting authority to review an initial application and any subsequent application updates related to initial permit issuance and will ensure that the GHG adjustment will be reasonable and consistent with the actual costs. Any updates to an initial application are included in a single "GHG completeness determination," rather than as a separate activity that is counted in addition to the completeness determination for the initial application. This is an important distinction because many sources submit multiple permit application updates, either voluntarily or as required by the permitting authority, during application review, many of which do not require a separate or comprehensive completeness determination.

The second clarification to the final option 1 approach is to revise the regulatory text of "GHG evaluation for a permit modification or related permit action." The EPA had proposed that the second listed activity under option 1 would be "GHG evaluation for a modification or related permit action." For the final rule, we are clarifying that we are adding a cost for a "permit modification" rather than for a "modification." The term "modification" may be interpreted to refer to any change at a source, even a change that would not be required to be processed as a "permit modification," while "permit modification" refers to any revision to an operating permit that cannot be processed as an administrative permit amendment and thus requires a review by a permitting authority as either a significant or minor permit modification.

The EPA is also finalizing the third activity as "GHG evaluation at permit renewal." This activity covers the processing of all permit renewal applications and will involve evaluations of whether any GHG applicable requirements are properly included.
In response to EPA's proposed alternative to increase the dollar per ton rates used in the fee calculations for each non-GHG fee pollutant (option 2), one commenter (9507) stated that they do not disagree with establishing option 2 in states where the EPA is involved with PSD permitting, but not in states where GHG review is part of the normal PSD permitting process, which includes fees. Some states have expedited permit review procedures that may be more efficient than the EPA assumes, so they believe the EPA should not dictate to states on the minimum length of time required to review a permit application.
One commenter (9504) opposed option 2 because the commenter believes it is not fair to charge sources for GHGs on the basis of their other regulated air pollutants (such as VOCs), unless the EPA can demonstrate there is a relationship of GHGs to non-GHGs. In other words, it is not reasonable to require states to raise fees for VOC sources that do not emit GHGs to cover the costs of regulating GHGs. One commenter (9780) stated that the 7 percent adjustment factor of option 2 should not be applied to sources emitting only non-GHGs that are subject to title V, since the EPA has not demonstrated that an increased fee is needed for all regulated pollutants to cover title V costs of permitting all new, modified, reconstructed and existing sources, and that this will result in excessive costs without adequate justification.

One commenter (10017) provided an alternative dollar per ton charge than that proposed by the EPA in option 2. The commenter suggested adding a prorated, tailored presumptive minimum fee for CO2 under the existing $25/ton consumer price index (CPI) adjusted fee structure, which would minimize complexity and ensure uniform and timely implementation of funding to implement GHG regulations for title V facilities. Another commenter (9730) stated if the EPA is unable to establish an adequate and reasonable option 2 GHG adjustment, the EPA should at a minimum consider an emissions-based fee that is a simple adjustment to the per-ton calculation in the existing presumptive minimum fee by dividing a source's GHG emissions by 1,000. The commenter stated that this approach was appropriate because under the Tailoring Rule, the GHG emissions threshold for title V is 100,000 tons per year (tpy) of CO2e, compared to a basic threshold of 100 tpy of regulated air pollutants - a difference of a factor of 1,000. The commenter noted that this would equate to a simple presumptive minimum fee (based on the original fee of $25 per ton of regulated air pollutants) of $25 per thousand tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), with the base of $25 adjusted by the CPI.
As explained in the final rule preamble, the EPA is finalizing GHG adjustment option 1 instead of option 2 because the option 1 adjustments are based on the actual costs for permitting authorities to process specific actions that require GHG reviews. The option 2 approach, which would have added a 7 percent surcharge to the $/ton rate used in the fee-related calculations, may have been administratively easier to implement. However, as noted by some commenters, the option 2 approach is tied to the emissions of non-GHG air pollutants, which are not directly related to the costs of GHG permitting.
Also, we disagree with the comment that there would be no costs for GHG permitting under title V because the reviews would already occur under the PSD program, which also charges fees. We explain in response 9.7-1 of the RTC that the costs of GHG permitting we address in this rulemaking are title V costs, not PSD costs. Section 502(b)(3)(A) requires all title V costs to be covered by title V fees only and this rulemaking action does not address the costs of GHG permitting for the PSD program.

As an alternative to the options proposed by the EPA, some commenters asserted that the EPA should make a GHG cost adjustment using a separate, but reduced fee rate ($/ton) for GHGs. We, however, believe that the option 1 approach of the final rule will be more equitable for sources and more representative of actual costs because option 1 considers the costs of the actual permitting activities performed by a particular permitting authority, while any emissions-based approach would not be as directly related to actual costs incurred by permitting authorities. Also, since EPA is not finalizing option 2, we need not further address commenters' points about how option 2 should have been structured or what basis was required to support it.
Concerning the comment that the GHG fees should only cover the costs of GHG permitting, we agree in a general sense to the extent that the commenter is agreeing with our proposal to increase revenue to cover the additional costs of GHG permitting through the GHG adjustment of proposed option 1. The proposal explained that we estimated the costs of GHG permitting and have designed a GHG adjustment, which we are finalizing, to recover only those costs.One commenter (9648) stated that it is unclear why the EPA is applying the results of the GHG Tailoring Rule implementation to pre-define CCS related costs under section 111, as the two programs are completely different in terms of the expected agency resources required.
The EPA did not pre-define CCS costs as Title V costs in either its proposal or in this final rulemaking action. We made no statements in the proposal concerning Title V fees with respect to CCS costs and make no such statements in the final rule. As we explained elsewhere, the purpose of this rulemaking action was to address the cost of GHG permitting for permitting authorities as a whole, without respect to particular emissions or emissions standards.
One commenter (9003) stated that they rely on emissions fees to support the costs of the operating permit program. The commenter noted that in recent years, there have been significant reductions in emissions and the associated fees due to closures and fuel switching at coal-fired utility boilers. The commenter alleged that title V fees will continue to be impacted as the EPA moves forward with regulations for GHG emissions from utility boilers and other rules that result in significant reductions in emissions. The commenter argued that the EPA should consider the costs to states to implement this rule and other future rules.
To the extent that the commenter is suggesting that the EPA should consider adjusting the Part 70 presumptive minimum and Part 71 fee collection regulations to account for the costs to permitting authorities for implementing the section 111 standards and future rules, such as future emissions standards, we respond that such considerations are beyond the scope of this rulemaking action. We have explained elsewhere that the GHG adjustment of this rule are not related to the costs of implementing any particular emissions standards and this rule is also not related to considering the costs of implementing any particular future emissions standards. The commenter also noted that there have been significant reductions in emissions over the years and that this has led to reductions in title V fees for states (presumably they are referring to states that follow the presumptive minimum approach). To the extent that the commenter is suggesting that this rulemaking action should provide an adjustment to the presumptive minimum fee to account for emissions reductions over time due to successful implementation of emission standards, such considerations are beyond the scope of this rulemaking action. However, the EPA notes that this final rule will result in increased fee collection by states following the presumptive minimum approach and under the Part 71 program, which may address concerns over declining title V fee revenue to some extent.
One commenter (10098) stated that they will be harmed by the proposal to impose new fees based on GHG emissions because the EPA is proposing for the first time minimum payment obligations for facilities subject to GHG permitting requirements. Sources are already subject to GHG permitting requirements and would have to pay increased fees under the proposal. Another commenter (10239) stated that under the proposed rule, non-EGU sources will be harmed because under proposed options 1 and 2, fees will increase for sources that have no GHG emissions and under the current rule.
The EPA disagrees with the comments that finalizing a GHG adjustment would inappropriately increase sources' financial burdens. The EPA has explained, both in the proposal notice and elsewhere in this preamble, the importance of the fee-related revisions to ensure that permitting authorities continue to collect sufficient revenue to cover the costs of addressing GHGs in title V permitting, which could include reviews for sources with low or no GHG emissions and reviews to ensure that sources have not failed to report GHG applicable requirements that apply to them. The EPA believes that the revisions being finalized will result in modest and reasonable fee increases that are necessary to ensure all programs costs are covered by fees for states using the presumptive minimum approach for part 70 and for the part 71 program. The requirement for title V sources to pay fees is not a new obligation under this rulemaking. CAA section 503(b)(3)(A) requires title V sources to pay fees to support the costs of the permitting programs and this obligation has applied to title V sources prior to this rulemaking action. Also, this rulemaking action does not directly address how part 70 sources, including sources with no GHG emissions, would be required by states to pay fees, which are at state discretion.
One commenter (10660) stated that the EPA should complete an analysis of state fee structures to understand if SIP revisions are necessary to ensure that finalizing the current proposal does not trigger excessive permit fees.
The EPA disagrees with the commenter. First, EPA notes that changes to a states' operating permit program are not required to occur through a SIP revision and do not generally occur through a SIP revision. Assuming that the commenter intends to state that EPA should analyze whether an individual state needs to revise its EPA-approved operating permit program rules in response to the final rule, certain states may need to revise their rules to add the GHG adjustment of the final rule or to revise the requirements for particular sources to pay fees, but the EPA is not required to conduct such a study and such a study is not needed to ensure smooth implementation of the final rule. The implementation of the GHG adjustment for states that implement the presumptive minimum will be straightforward. A bigger concern for states would be cases where the revised presumptive minimum calculation would result in a need for the state to raise additional revenue by revising state requirements for particular sources to pay fees. Such considerations are beyond the scope of this rulemaking action due to the discretion that the EPA has provided to states for how they charge fees to particular sources.