From: Rebecca Nicholson and Katie Hanks To: Mary Tom Kissell Waste and Chemical Processes Group ( WCPG), C439 03 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Date: November 8, 2004 Project: Plywood and Composite Wood Products NESHAP Re: Meeting Minutes for the October 29, 2004 Meeting Between the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), the American Forest and Paper Association ( AF& PA), and Representatives of the PCWP Industry I. Purpose The EPA participated in a meeting with members of AF& PA and other representatives of the PCWP industry on October 29, 2004, to discuss industry questions and concerns related to potential amendments to the final Plywood and Composite Wood Products ( PCWP) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP). The list of participants is included as Attachment 1 and the agenda prepared for the meeting is included in Attachment 2.

II. Discussion A. Update on Draft Amendment Proposal The meeting began with introductions and an update by EPA on the status of the amendment proposal under development for the PCWP NESHAP. The majority of the amendments under consideration would affect Appendix B to subpart DDDD, the procedures that facilities must use to demonstrate that they belong in the delisted low risk subcategory, and in particular, the procedures for determining mass emissions from individual process units within each PCWP affected source. An EPA representative stated that EPA staff and RTI have been drafting the amendment proposal that will be recommended to the EPA work group and EPA management. The amendment package must first undergo formal EPA review and then OMB review ( a process that could take up to 90 days). Thus, the current draft of the amendment proposal could change. The AF& PA representative stated that the industry is anxious to resolve any issues because member companies are working hard to determine if their facilities meet the 2 low risk criteria before the July 2006 low risk demonstration submittal date ( which is less than 2 years away). He noted that most of the PCWP risk demos would likely be submitted to EPA just prior to the July 2006 deadline.

The discussion then turned to a draft summary of the amendments under consideration ( provided in Attachment 3). Except as discussed below, most of the draft amendments listed in Attachment 3 were self explanatory and did not require lengthy discussion. An EPA representative noted the table item in Attachment 3 labeled as " Appendix B" and stated that EPA is considering whether to add a requirement to Appendix B for facilities to continually consider dose response values for PCWP hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) in addition to the 13 HAP listed in Appendix B ( as promulgated). Should dose response values change such that they become more health protective, then Appendix B ( following amendment) would require facilities to revisit their risk analyses to ensure they remain in the low risk subcategory. However, specific rule language for this amendment has not yet been developed. The industry representatives objected to this potential amendment. The AF& PA representative argued that once whole source categories are delisted, EPA does not revisit their previous delisting decisions every time a doseresponse value changes. An EPA representative responded that EPA could relist a source category if it was found to pose more risk than originally thought, and stated that EPA needs to establish a process for considering the potential risk posed by additional PCWP HAP in the future should these additional HAP be deemed more potent. The Georgia Pacific representative stated that, while facilities ensure continuous compliance with permit limits, they are not in the practice of staying abreast of risk benchmarks. However, an EPA representative noted that facilities becoming part of the PCWP low risk subcategory are already required to track changes in the dose response values for the 13 HAP listed in Appendix B ( as promulgated), and that tracking changes in dose response values for an additional 17 or so HAP is little added effort. The AF& PA representative then suggested that under the approach used by EPA in selecting the 13 HAP included in the promulgated Appendix B ( i. e., the HAP that contribute 95 percent of the risk), as additional HAP come onto the list of significant risk contributors, the effects of other HAP would diminish such that some of the 13 HAP could be removed from consideration under Appendix B.

The industry representatives supported EPA's draft amendment to Appendix B section 5( j), that would allow only one of multiple similar process units at a plant site to be tested ( e. g., one of three veneer dryers at a plant). However, the industry representatives requested that EPA take this amendment a step further and allow test data for a process unit at one plant to be applied to similar process units at other plants within the same company ( and perhaps at other companies). The industry representatives stated that this is commonly done for permitting purposes. They stated that they would justify how the process units at multiple plants are similar ( e. g., same model unit, similar parameters, same heating method), just as they would justify that process units at the same plant site are similar. An RTI representative asked how often facilities would be required to conduct emissions testing under their title V permits. Two of the industry representatives replied that the amount of time between performance tests varies from State to 1K. Hanks, K. Parrish, and D. Randall, RTI, to M. Kissell, EPA/ ESD. Procedures for Determining Emissions from Plywood and Composite Wood Products Process Units for Low risk Demonstrations. Draft in progress.

3 State, but that 3 to 5 years between tests is common for demonstrating compliance with permit limits. One of the industry representatives stated that EPA needs to consider the role of emissions tests in the low risk demonstration, and stated that the purpose of the emissions test was to obtain a permit limit. The industry representative stated that his company intends to use conservative emissions values ( e. g., emission test result plus as much of a safety factor as possible while remaining low risk) to ensure that they establish a permit limit that can be met at all times. The industry representative also noted that emissions from a single process unit can vary by ± 20 percent.

An NCASI representative asked if a facility can test one vent of a process unit and assume that the data collected for that vent are similar to other identical vents on the same process unit ( e. g., for PCWP presses with multiple vents). An RTI representative acknowledged that this has been done in the past, and that the test report should provide appropriate rationale for testing only one vent and calculations showing how the results from one vent were also applied to other vents ( i. e., if there are two identical vents then the mass emission rate from the vent tested should be multiplied by two to represent the total emissions from the process unit).

B. Process Unit Emission Testing Prior to the meeting, the industry representatives were provided with a draft table listing the PCWP process units and indicating whether emissions testing would continue to be required or if emissions estimation is under consideration for the draft amendments to Appendix B. If emissions estimation is under consideration, then the draft table presents the emission factors or emissions estimation methodology that would be allowed. Attachment 4 presents the draft summary of testing or emissions estimation procedures ( for possible inclusion as Table 6 to Appendix B to subpart DDDD). During the meeting, EPA also handed out draft process unit definitions ( provided in Attachment 5) under consideration for inclusion in Appendix B. To begin the discussion of process unit emissions testing, an RTI representative explained how the list of process units in the draft Table 6 was selected, the approach used in deciding whether to continue to require emissions testing or allow emissions estimates, the emissions estimation approach selected, and how emission factors are to be applied. All of this information will be documented in a memorandum supporting development of the amendment proposal. 1 Next, the industry representatives raised several questions related to the draft Table 6 and associated draft process unit definitions. The industry's concerns are summarized in the following paragraphs.

The industry representatives reiterated the difficulties of testing lumber kilns ( i. e., 24 hour or longer batch cycle, oscillating vents, etc.). They noted that some facilities may pursue testing of lumber kilns because they would have difficulty meeting the low risk criteria 4 ( particularly with the look up table or lower tiered risk analyses) if they used the lumber kiln acrolein emission factor suggested by EPA for inclusion in the proposed amendments. The industry representatives requested that EPA allow use of small scale lumber kiln emissions testing. They noted that small scale kilns have been tested in the past, and that test results from small scale lumber kilns were comparable to those from full scale kilns ( as shown in NCASI technical bulletin 845). They stated that several universities have small scale lumber kilns that could be used for emissions testing under controlled conditions including: Mississippi State University ( contact is Leonard Ingram), Oregon State University ( contact is Michael Milota), and North Carolina State University ( NCSU  Bill DeWees with DEECO has been in contact with NCSU). There could be commercial facilities with small scale kilns as well. In small scale kiln testing a sample of lumber from a facility is sent to the small scale kiln where it is dried under conditions mirroring those of the facility's full scale kilns. Emissions and gas flow rates are easier to measure at small scale kilns than for full scale kilns. The industry representatives felt that small scale kiln testing would provide more accurate results than application of the default emission factors selected by EPA for inclusion in Appendix B. The industry representatives acknowledged that they are unaware of any small scale kilns that are direct fired. An NCASI representative stated that NCASI has tested the emissions from a two stage green sawdust burner and found that the emissions were relatively free of HAP metals. [ Note: Following the meeting RTI was unable to locate any lumber kiln HAP metals data in technical bulletin 845.] An RTI representative stated that while the idea of small scale kiln testing is promising, EPA would need to consider developing or referring to some standard procedures for small scale kiln testing to ensure data quality ( e. g., procedures for packaging the lumber so that it does not air dry in route to the small scale kiln, required documentation to show that full scale kiln conditions are duplicated in the small scale kiln, etc.).

The industry representatives requested that EPA not require emissions testing of veneer dryer cooling vents. They stated that veneer dryers typically have several cooling vents per dryer, and the purpose of the cooling zone of veneer dryers was to blow ambient air over the hot sheets of veneer to cool them. An NCASI representative explained that they had difficult locating veneer dryers with testable cooling zones and that NCASI had to build temporary stacks in order to test cooling zones during their 29 mill sampling program. The industry representatives noted that the veneer dryer cooling zones have very low HAP emissions compared to other processes at plywood plants and requested that EPA select a worst case value from the available emission factors for inclusion in Appendix B.

The industry representatives questioned the process unit category named " other ancillary processes ( not listed elsewhere in this table) that may emit HAP listed in this table" in the draft Table 6. The AF& PA representative stated that there is no evidence that process units other than those listed in Table 6 contribute to the risk from PCWP facilities. The industry representatives were concerned that the meaning of " other ancillary processes" was not clear and could be interpreted to mean that they must test insignificant sources of emissions ( e. g., green end operations such as green material storage piles, truck dumps, and green end saws). They 5 recommended that all operations that are not part of the manufacturing process and do not involve use of heat or resin be excluded from the emissions determination requirements. An RTI representative explained that the " other ancillary processes" category was included in the draft Table 6 to ensure that no process units ( e. g., one of a kind dryers, hog fuel dryers, and other processes that do not otherwise meet any of the process unit definitions) that a facility knows to emit Appendix B HAP are excluded from the low risk determination. The industry representatives agreed that there could be some unique process units, but strongly encouraged EPA to be clear about which operations are to be excluded from the " other ancillary processes" category or to set an emissions cutoff ( e. g., X tons per year) below which ancillary processes need not be considered. The industry representatives suggested that EPA adopt a list of activities that would not be expected to emit Appendix B HAP similar to a list of insignificant activities used for permitting purposes. An RTI representative stated that some rationale for processes included on the " insignificant activities" list would be needed.

The industry representatives questioned EPA's draft definition of " wastewater/ process water operation" and indicated that the definition was overly broad. The draft Table 6 for possible inclusion in Appendix B states that engineering emissions such as estimates generated with EPA's WATER9 model must be developed for " wastewater/ process water operations." An RTI representative pointed out that the definition originated from public comments on the proposed rule. The industry representatives stated that many of the units mentioned in the " wastewater/ process water operation" definition would have insignificant emissions because of the low vapor pressure liquids processed and recommended that EPA revise the definition. They noted that subpart Kb contains vapor pressure cutoffs for tanks. They indicated that log storage ponds and log vats, in particular, should be removed from the definition. One industry representative suggested that EPA lump log steaming vats, log storage ponds, and log vats into one definition for " log conditioning process units" and apply the available log steaming vat emission factors for these operations ( even though the log steaming vat emission factors would likely over estimate emissions). The industry representatives indicated that they would provide further comments on the definition and consideration of wastewater/ process water operations for purposes of the low risk demonstration.

For atmospheric refiners, the industry representatives suggested that EPA separate hardboard/ fiberboard and particleboard atmospheric refiners for purposes of the draft Table 6. They stated that the hardboard/ fiberboard atmospheric refiner tested used HAP containing process water ( i. e., white water) which gave it different emissions characteristics from particleboard refiners. According to the industry representative, particleboard atmospheric refiners represent the majority of atmospheric refiners and emit no HAP except for methanol. They suggested that EPA also re consider whether it is worthwhile to test benzene emissions from atmospheric refiners.

The industry representatives also requested that EPA split out particleboard and medium density fiberboard ( MDF) blending and forming operations in the draft Table 6. They contended 6 that there is an order of magnitude difference in the emissions from particleboard and MDF blending and forming operations.

With regard to the default emission estimates for resin storage tanks, the industry representatives thought the pound per hour values included in the draft Table 6 were very conservative for phenol and formaldehyde. They also commented that the TANKS program was not difficult to use.

As promulgated, Appendix B would require HAP metals emissions testing for directfired process units. The industry representatives requested that EPA exclude natural gas fired process units from the HAP metals testing requirement based on the fact that there is little potential for HAP metals from burning of natural gas. The industry representatives noted that natural gas fired process units are usually limited to firing only natural gas by their permits. They further requested that EPA allow a fuel analysis ( similar to what is promulgated in the Boilers NESHAP) instead of emissions testing for the process units direct fired with fuels other than natural gas. Using a fuel analysis, a worst case sample of fuel ( i. e., wood) would be tested for metal content and then it would be assumed that all of the metals in the fuel are emitted.

The industry representatives requested that EPA revisit their decision to require benzene and acrolein emissions testing for process units where these HAP have rarely or never been detected. They referred to the white paper on this issue that they had submitted previously, and argued that benzene and acrolein emissions would not be expected from process units that do not involve combustion. The industry representatives stated that testing for benzene and acrolein is more difficult than testing for the other Appendix B HAP. They stated that emissions testing contractors are very uncomfortable using Fourier Transform Infrared ( FTIR) spectroscopy for benzene, and therefore, the industry representatives requested that EPA allow use of EPA Method 18 for benzene measurement. They also stated that the FTIR method detection limit ( MDL) for acrolein is about 1.8 parts per million ( ppm), although the MDL is not determined until the raw data are analyzed. According to the industry representatives, some test contractors are optimistic that they can get below a 1 ppm acrolein MDL, however, to date no contractors have been able to get below 1 ppm. The industry representatives acknowledged that the NCASI Method IM/ CAN/ WP 99.02 could get below 1 ppm for both benzene and acrolein.

C. Health Effects of Acetaldehyde and Acrolein The AF& PA representative indicated that AF& PA is currently working with CIIT Centers for Health Research ( CIIT) on new studies related to the mode of action of acrolein and acetaldehyde. The studies began with a literature review. The AF& PA representative expects to know by mid December whether the evidence in these studies is strong enough to proceed with additional study. The AF& PA representative acknowledged that third party review must be completed before EPA would consider other dose response values for acrolein and acetaldehyde. An EPA representative stated that it would be challenging for industry to affect any change on the 7 dose response values for acrolein and acetaldehyde before July 2006. The EPA representative stated that the third party review process must consist of a peer review panel ( i. e., it is not as simple as publishing a scientific journal article), and that all studies would be considered in the Integrated Risk Information System ( IRIS) process when and if EPA decides to reevaluate the dose response values. Thus, the IRIS review process takes time. The EPA representative noted that the reference concentration ( RfC) for acrolein, in particular, includes a number of uncertainty factors due to data gaps and that the IRIS review for acrolein is ongoing. He recommended that, if the industry has any new data, they should submit it very soon and note how it fits into the context of the existing data because this could impact how the existing data are weighted for purposes of revising the RfC. An industry representative stated that the industry is not conducting new animal studies, but plans to review the mode of action documented in former studies. The EPA representative suggested that the industry representatives meet with EPA ( including EPA's Office of Research and Development) again in the coming months to discuss the scope of the study.

D. Industry's Implementation Questions Next, the industry's maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) implementation questions were briefly discussed. The questions submitted by the industry representatives prior to the meeting ( with AF& PA's suggested responses) are provided in Attachment 6. The AF& PA suggested responses do not necessarily reflect final EPA decisions or EPA responses to the questions. All of the questions were not discussed or resolved during the meeting. However, EPA remarks made in response to some of the questions are indicated below.

With regard to risk assessment question 1 ( Can a mill mix and match look up table and site specific analyses, that is, only do site specific modeling for endpoints that fail the screening model? For example, if pass cancer on look up table then don't need to model cancer in site specific efforts as you look at other non cancer chronic/ acute affects.), an EPA representative stated that he thought this was allowed under Appendix B ( as promulgated). The EPA representative noted that a hybrid tier is allowed under the site specific risk assessment guidance ( Air Toxics Risk Assessment Guidance reference Library, Volume 2) referred to in Appendix B. The AF& PA representative suggested that EPA clarify this in the amendment package.

The EPA representatives stated that the EPA work group will need to make a decision regarding risk assessment question 2 ( Can mills have a " shield" ( protection from application of MACT for three years) if health benchmark changes between now and risk assessment submittal even if no application has been submitted to EPA but the mill is well down the path of demonstrating it will meet the low risk subcategory?). An EPA representative stated that the rule addresses how to handle changes in health benchmarks after a facility becomes part of the lowrisk subcategory, so the question only applies to the time period between submittal of the low risk demonstration and approval of the facility as belonging to the low risk subcategory. The EPA representatives at the meeting suggested that facilities go ahead and submit their low risk demonstration for approval with the former benchmark by the deadline, and then if they pass their initial low risk demonstration, submit a revised demonstration showing the effects of the new benchmark. The AF& PA representative suggested that EPA clarify how to handle this situation in the proposed amendment package.

With regard to general question 1 ( Do lumber kilns need to file a Part I hammer application ( FR 45962 preamble)?), an EPA representative disagreed with AF& PA's suggestion that the amendment proposal should specify that the initial notification could be used in place of a Part I hammer application. The EPA representative pointed out that the amendment proposal would not be published before the January 2005 initial notification due date.

An RTI representative clarified for general question 7 ( § 63.2262( h) specifies how to determine the control efficiency across an emission control system during the initial performance test. The equation for determining percent reduction contains a term ( CE) for capture efficiency. The text says that the CE is to be " determined for reconstituted wood product presses and board coolers as required in Table 4 to this subpart." However, the rule is silent about how to determine the CE for control systems on processes other than wood product presses and board coolers, e. g. for a credit unit in emissions averaging. Are we to assume 100 % capture efficiency for dryers and use a CE of 1.0 in the equation?) that capture efficiency need not be determined for credit generating process units if the reduction in captured emissions provides the desired credits.

E. Other Issues Potential permitting issues were discussed. One industry representative believes that permitting should not be an issue and that facilities would simply obtain permit limits, typically an emission limit either for the entire facility or per process unit. He noted that most PCWP facilities already have permit limits for formaldehyde and methylene diphenyl diisocyanate ( MDI), if applicable. Another industry representative stated that EPA would do the risk review, but some States ( e. g., South Carolina) may also want to do their own review of the risk assessment. There is public review process when permits are re opened and some States may be concerned that they would be unable to answer questions if they do not review the risk assessments themselves; however, the States may defer to EPA. An EPA representative noted that EPA has told State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators/ Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials ( STAPPA/ ALAPCO) that they would provide outreach materials ( e. g., risk assessment templates, etc.), and that some States are waiting to see how the litigation is resolved.

Due to time constraints, there was no discussion of the draft low risk demonstration review templates submitted by industry.

Attachment 1 List of Participants U. S. EPA Dave Guinnup, OAQPS/ REAG Kent C. Hustvedt, OAQPS/ WCPG Mary Tom Kissell, OAQPS/ WCPG Scott Jenkins, OAQPS/ REAG PCWP Industry John Bradfield, Composite Panel Association ( CPA) Phil Ferguson, International Paper David Harvey, Louisiana Pacific Corporation Tim Hunt, American Forest and Paper Association Lawrence Otwell, Georgia Pacific Corporation John Pinkerton, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement ( NCASI) David Word, NCASI Stephen Woock, Weyerhaeuser Research Triangle Institute Katie Hanks Rebecca Nicholson Attachment 2 Draft Agenda EPA AF& PA PCWP Implementation October 29, 2004 Draft Agenda Introductions Update on Supplemental Rule   timing and content Discussion of process unit emission testing Health effects testing Implementation questions: 1. Risk 2. General Draft Risk Templates   feedback [ if time]

Next Steps Attachment 3 Draft Summary of Proposed Amendments TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Citation Change § § 63.2232( b) and 63.2292 Revise definition of " affected source" to include combustion unit exhaust streams used to direct fire process units.

§ 63.2250( a) Revise language to clarify rule applicability during unscheduled startups and shutdowns.

§ 63.2252 Add section to exclude affected sources with no process units subject to compliance options or work practice requirements ( e. g., sawmills) from performance testing, monitoring, SSM plan, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

§ 63.2262( d)( 1) Allow testing between wet control device and HAP control device.

§ 63.2292 Revise definition of " tube dryer" to clarify that heat is applied.

§ 63.2292 and Appendix B, section 15 Move definition of " direct fired process unit" from Appendix B to subpart DDDD, section 15 to § 63.2292 of subpart DDDD.

Appendix A, section 10 Correct misnumbering of sections 10.4 and 10.5.

Appendix B Revise to include requirement to consider other PCWP HAP if health benchmarks are developed or become more health protective.

Appendix B, section 4( b) introductory text and 4( b)( 4) Revise to include new paragraph ( 4) stating that if there is no dose response value for a pollutant ( e. g., lead) on EPA's website, then the pollutant need not be included in the risk analysis.

Appendix B, sections 4( a), 5( a), 6( a), 6( b), and Equations 1 and 2, Revised terminology to refer to " emission point" instead of " process unit"

Appendix B, section 5( a) and Table 2A Specify whether testing or emission estimation is required for various process units. Add Table 2A to specify emission estimation procedures or emissions testing requirements.

Appendix B, section 5( f)( 2) Allow use of other EPA Method 29 laboratory analysis procedures with detection limits equal to or lower than atomic absorption spectroscopy ( AAS) when claiming zero for non detect HAP metals measurements.

Appendix B, section 5( i) Allow use of previous emission test results ( e. g., NCASI IM/ CAN/ WP 99.01).

Appendix B, section 5( j) Allow only one of multiple similar process units to be tested ( e. g., one of three veneer dryers).

Appendix B, section 5( k) Specify requirements for developing emission estimates according to Table 2A Table 1. Continued Appendix B, section 6( a) and Table 2A Revise to clarify that section 6( a) applies when emissions estimation or testing performed.

Appendix B, section 6( a) Add equations for calculation of carcinogen and non carcinogen weighted average stack height Appendix B, section 6( b), 6( c), 8( b)( 1), 8( b)( 3) Revise to clarify that weighted average stack height calculations must be used Appendix B, section 8( a)( 3) Require submittal of emissions estimate calculations with low risk demonstration.

Appendix B, section 10( c) Revise date for new sources to conduct emissions tests and submit demonstrations of eligibility for the low risk subcategory.

Appendix B, section 11( b) Revise to state that facilities must be in the process of incorporating parameters that defined the affected source as part of the low risk subcategory into their title V permit, as opposed to having the permit revised before the MACT compliance date.

Appendix B, section 15 Add definitions of various process units not defined in subpart DDDD and move definition of " direct fired process unit" to § 63.2292.

Appendix B, Table 2 Renumber as Table 2B. Delete footnote 1 related to benzene and acrolein testing.

Appendix B, Table 2, row 5 Allow use of NCASI IM/ CAN/ WP 99.02 for benzene testing.

Appendix B, Table 3 Change column heading to " distance to property boundary"

Appendix B, Tables 3 and 4 Delete footnote regarding units of measure. Attachment 4 Draft Summary of Testing or Emissions Estimation Procedures for Amendment to Appendix B to Subpart DDDD ( to be proposed) DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Table 6. Summary of recommended testing or emissions estimation procedures for process units to be included in Appendix B to subpart DDDD.

Process unit type Subpart DDDD control ( C)

or work practice ( WP) Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde Phenol Benzene MDI HAP metals from direct fired process units Agricultural fiber board presses none test test test test test test if board contains MDI resin NA Agricultural fiberboard mat dryers none test test test test test NA test Atmospheric refiners none test test test test test NA NA Blending and forming operations  OSB none NA NA 0.0036 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" press throughput engineering estimate NA engineering estimate if MDI resin used NA Blending and forming operations  particleboard and MDF none NA NA 0.060 lb/ ODT NA NA engineering estimate if MDI resin used NA Conveyor strand dryers C test test test test test NA NA Dry forming

hardboard none engineering estimate NA engineering estimate engineering estimate NA NA NA Dry rotary dryers WP test test test test test NA test Fiber washers none 0.015 lb/ ODT NA 0.0026 lb/ ODT NA NA NA NA Fiberboard mat dryer ( fugitive emissions) none 0.0055 lb/ MSF ½ " NA 0.031 lb/ MSF ½ " NA NA NA NA Fiberboard mat dryer ( heated zones) C ( new) test test test test test NA test DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Process unit type Subpart DDDD control ( C)

or work practice ( WP) Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde Phenol Benzene MDI HAP metals from direct fired process units Finishing saws none 0.00092 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" NA 0.00034 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" 0.0057 lb/ MSF NA engineering estimate if MDI resin used NA Finishing sanders none 0.0028 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" NA 0.0042 lb/ MSF 0.015 lb/ MSF NA engineering estimate if MDI resin used NA Green rotary dryers C test test test test test NA test Hardboard ovens C test test test test test NA test Hardwood veneer dryers ( heated zones) WP test test test test test NA test Hardwood veneer dryer, cooling sections none test test test test test NA NA Hardwood plywood presses none NA NA 0.0088 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" 0.016 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" NA NA NA Hardwood veneer kilns none 0.067 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" NA 0.016 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" 0.0053 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" NA NA Engineering estimate Humidifiers none 0.0018 lb/ MSF 1/ 8" 0.0087 lb/ MSF 1/ 8" 0.0010 lb/ MSF 1/ 8" 0.00057 lb/ MSF 1/ 8" 0.0000062 lb/ MSF 1/ 8" NA NA I joist curing chambers none NA NA 0.00018 lb/ MLF NA NA engineering estimate if MDI resin used NA Log steaming vats none 0.0047 lb/ MSF 3/ 8"

removed from vat per hour NA NA NA NA NA NA DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Process unit type Subpart DDDD control ( C)

or work practice ( WP) Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde Phenol Benzene MDI HAP metals from direct fired process units LSL presses none engineering estimate NA 0.029 lb/ 1000 ft3 engineering estimate NA 0.18 lb/ 1000 ft3 NA Lumber kilns none 0.065 lb/ MBF 0.009 lb/ MBF 0.034 lb/ MBF 0.010 lb/ MBF NA NA Engineering estimate LVL presses none 0.29 lb/ 1000 ft3 NA 0.79 lb/ 1000 ft3 NA NA NA NA Paddle type particleboard dryers none test test test test test NA test Panel trim chippers none 0.00081 lb/ MSF 3/ 8"

finished board production NA 0.00034 lb/ MSF 3/ 8"

finished board production 0.0019 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" finished board production NA NA NA Particleboard press molds and particleboard extruders none 0.034 lb/ MSF 3/ 4" 0.0087 lb/ MSF 3/ 4" 0.64 lb/ MSF 3/ 4" 0.024 lb/ MSF 3/ 4" 0.0073 lb/ MSF 3/ 4" NA NA Press predryers C test test test test test NA test Pressurized refiners C test test test test test NA NA Primary tube dryers C test test test test test test if processing furnish with MDI resin added prior to drying test Radio frequency veneer redryers none 0.0029 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" NA 0.00065 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" NA NA NA NA DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Process unit type Subpart DDDD control ( C)

or work practice ( WP) Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde Phenol Benzene MDI HAP metals from direct fired process units Reconstituted wood products presses C test test test test test test if board contains MDI resin NA Reconstituted wood product board coolers C ( new) test test test test test test if board contains MDI resin NA Resin storage tanks none NA NA 0.19 lb/ hr per tank for tanks with resin containing formaldehyde OR model using TANKS softwarea 0.18 lb/ hr per tank for tanks with resin containing phenol OR model using TANKS softwarea NA 0.0013 lb/ hr per tank for tanks with MDI resin OR model using TANKS softwarea NA Rotary strand dryers C test test test test test NA test Rotary agricultural fiber dryers none test test test test test NA test Secondary tube dryers C test test test test test test if processing furnish with MDI resin added prior to drying test Softwood plywood presses none 0.012 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" NA 0.0054 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" 0.0022 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" NA NA NA Softwood veneer dryers ( heated zones) C/ WP test test test test test NA test Softwood veneer dryers ( cooling zones) none test test test test test NA NA DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Process unit type Subpart DDDD control ( C)

or work practice ( WP) Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde Phenol Benzene MDI HAP metals from direct fired process units Softwood veneer kilns none 0.097 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" 0.012 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" 0.10 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" 0.020 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" 0.0078 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" NA Engineering estimate Stand alone digesters none 0.030 lb/ ODT 0.0024 lb/ ODT 0.0045 lb/ ODT 0.0012 lb/ ODT NA NA NA Veneer redryers ( heated by conventional means) WP test test test test test NA test Wastewater/ process water operations none engineering estimate ( such as WATER9a or other method) engineering estimate ( such as WATER9a or other method) engineering estimate ( such as WATER9a or other method) engineering estimate ( such as WATER9a or other method) engineering estimate ( such as WATER9a or other method) engineering estimate ( such as WATER9a or other method) if MDI resin used NA Wet forming

fiberboard and hardboard ( without PF resin) none 0.0075 lb/ MSF ½ " NA 0.0036 lb/ MSF ½ " NA NA NA NA Wet forming

hardboard ( PF resin) none 0.0067 lb/ ODT NA 0.00039 lb/ ODT 0.00075 lb/ ODT NA NA NA Miscellaneous coating operations, log chipping, and softwood veneer dryer fugitive emissions none NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Other ancillary processes ( not listed elsewhere in this table)

that may emit HAP listed in this table none engineering estimate engineering estimate engineering estimate engineering estimate engineering estimate engineering estimate engineering estimate test: Emissions testing must be conducted for the process unit and pollutant according to the test methods specified in Table 2b to Appendix B to subpart DDDD.

NA: Not applicable. No emission estimates or emissions testing is required for purposes of the low risk demonstration. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT lb/ MSF: Pounds of HAP per thousand square feet of board of the inches thickness specified ( e. g., lb/ MSF 3/ 4 = pounds of HAP per thousand square feet of 3/ 4 inch board).

See equation in § 63.2262( j) of subpart DDDD to convert from one thickness basis to another.

lb/ ODT: Pounds of HAP per oven dried ton of wood material a TANKS and WATER9 software is available at http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ chief/ software/ index. html Attachment 5 Draft Process Unit Definitions for Amendment to Appendix B to Subpart DDDD ( to be proposed)

Agricultural fiber board press means a press used in the production of an agricultural fiber based composite wood product. An agricultural fiber board press is a process unit.

Agricultural fiberboard mat dryer means a dryer used to reduce the moisture of wet formed agricultural fiber mats by operation at elevated temperature. An agricultural fiberboard mat dryer is a process unit.

Atmospheric refiner means a piece of equipment operated under atmospheric pressure for refining ( rubbing or grinding) the wood material into fibers or particles. Atmospheric refiners are operated with continuous infeed and outfeed of wood material and atmospheric pressures throughout the refining process. An atmospheric refiner is a process unit.

Blending and forming operations means the process of mixing adhesive and other additives with the ( wood) furnish of the composite panel and making a mat of resinated fiber, particles, or strands to be compressed into a reconstituted wood product such as particleboard, oriented strandboard, or medium density fiberboard. Blending and forming operations are process units.

Fiber washer means a unit in which water soluble components of wood ( hemicellulose and sugars) that have been produced during digesting and refining are removed from the wood fiber. Typically wet fiber leaving a refiner is further diluted with water and then passed over a filter, leaving the cleaned fiber on the surface. A fiber washer is a process unit.

Finishing sander means a piece of equipment that uses an abrasive drum, belt, or pad to impart smoothness to the surface of a plywood or composite wood product panel and to reduce the panel to the prescribed thickness. A finishing sander is a process unit.

Finishing saw means a piece of equipment used to trim or cut finished plywood and composite wood products panels to a certain size. A finishing saw is a process unit.

Hardwood plywood press means a hot press which, through heat and pressure, bonds assembled hardwood veneers ( including multiple plies of veneer and/ or a substrate) and resin into a hardwood plywood panel. A hardwood plywood press is a process unit.

Hardwood veneer kiln means an enclosed dryer operated in batch cycles at elevated temperature to reduce the moisture content from stacked hardwood veneer. A hardwood veneer kiln is a process unit.

Humidifier means a process unit used to increase the moisture content of hardboard following pressing or after post baking. Typically, water vapor saturated air is blown over the hardboard surfaces in a closed cabinet. A humidifier is a process unit. I joist curing chamber means an oven or a room surrounded by a solid wall or heavy plastic flaps that uses heat, infrared, or radio frequency techniques to cure the adhesive. An I joist curing chamber is a process unit.

Log chipping means the production of wood chips from logs.

Log steaming vat means a process unit that raises the temperature of the logs inside by applying a heated substance, usually hot water and steam, to the outside of the logs by spraying. A log steaming vat is a process unit.

LSL press means a composite wood product press that presses a loose mat of resinated strands into a billet by simultaneous application of heat and pressure and forms laminated strand lumber. An LSL press is a process unit.

LVL press means a composite wood product press that presses resinated stacks of veneers into a solid billet by simultaneous application of heat and pressure and forms laminated veneer lumber or parallel strand lumber. An LVL press is a process unit.

Paddle type particleboard dryer means a dryer that uses elevated temperature to remove moisture from particles and paddles to advance materials through the dryer. This type of dryer removes moisture absorbed by particles due to high ambient temperature. A paddle type particleboard dryer is a process unit.

Panel trim chipper means a piece of equipment that accepts the discarded pieces of veneer or pressed plywood and composite wood products panels that are removed by finishing saws and reduces these pieces to small elements. A panel trim chipper is a process unit.

Particleboard extruder means a heated die oriented either horizontally or vertically through which resinated particles are continuously forced to form extruded particleboard products. A particleboard extruder is a process unit.

Particleboard press mold means a press that consists of molds that apply heat and pressure to form molded or shaped particleboard products. A particleboard press mold is a process unit.

Radio frequency veneer redryer means a dryer heated by radio frequency waves that is used to redry veneer that has been previously dried. A radio frequency veneer redryer is a process unit.

Resin storage tank means any storage tank, container, or vessel connected to plywood and composite wood product production that contains resin additives. A resin storage tank is a process unit.

Rotary agricultural fiber dryer means a rotary dryer operated at elevated temperature and used to reduce the moisture of agricultural fiber. A rotary agricultural fiber dryer is a process unit. Softwood plywood press means a hot press which, through heat and pressure, bonds assembled softwood veneer plies and resin into a softwood plywood panel. A softwood plywood press is a process unit.

Softwood veneer kiln means an enclosed dryer operated in batch cycles at elevated temperature to reduce the moisture content from stacked softwood veneer. A softwood veneer kiln is a process unit.

Stand alone digester means a pressure vessel used to heat and soften wood chips ( usually by steaming) before the chips are sent to a separate process unit for refining into fiber. A stand alone digester is a process unit.

Wastewater/ process water operation means equipment that processes water in plywood or composite wood product facilities for reuse or disposal. Wastewater/ process water operations includes but is not limited to pumps, holding ponds and tanks, cooling and heating operations, settling systems, filtration systems, aeration systems, clarifiers, pH adjustment systems, log storage ponds, log vats, pollution control device water ( including wash water), vacuum distillation systems, sludge drying and disposal systems, spray irrigation fields, and connections to POTW facilities. Wastewater/ process water operations are process units. Note: The AF& PA suggested responses in this attachment do not necessarily reflect final EPA decisions or EPA responses to the questions. Attachment 6 Industry Questions PCWP MACT Implementation Questions   Outstanding October 2004 Risk Assessment Questions 1. Can a mill mix and match look up table and site specific analyses, that is, only do site specific modeling for endpoints that fail the screening model? For example, if pass cancer on look up table then don't need to model cancer in site specific efforts as you look at other non cancer chronic/ acute affects.

AF& PA Response: Generally yes. However, in complex terrain, it is best to do refined modeling given inadequacies of look up table.

2. Can mills have a " shield" ( protection from application of MACT for three years) if health benchmark changes between now and risk assessment submittal even if no application has been submitted to EPA but mill well down the path of demonstrating it will meet the low risk subcategory?

AF& PA Response: Yes, a mill would get another three years to comply if a benchmark change is " controlling" on the outcome of the low risk demonstration ( were it not for the change, the mill would be considered low risk); EPA work through AF& PA and affiliated trades to notify mills if health benchmark changes. EPA make clear this policy.

3. Is EPA willing to consider an alternative, less stringent health benchmark ( i. e., acrolein or acetaldehyde) than currently in the OAQPS list even if the change occurs just before the two year deadline or between 7/ 06 and 10/ 07)?

AF& PA Response: Yes, EPA willing to consider the latest science regardless of when it becomes known to allow a mill to use it in its risk assessment demonstration. EPA make clear this approach in supplemental rule and provide clear process for mill to use ( third party review of science required).

4. How does a new facility model risk when they are not up and running to measure emissions?

AF& PA Response: Mill should use best estimate of emissions/ risk using predicted emissions and then verify once started ( no different than any new source requirements); supplement rule should clarify EPA's intent. Note: The AF& PA suggested responses in this attachment do not necessarily reflect final EPA decisions or EPA responses to the questions. 5. If have previous source testing, can mill use the emissions information in risk assessment if it meets conditions/ methods in rule?

AF& PA Response: If quality of data gathered meets guidelines then EPA willing to use even if no test plan or early notice to EPA; clarify in supplemental rule to explicitly allow if any uncertainty.

Following questions EPA has indicated will be included in supplemental rule; confirm with EPA:

6. Will the Title V language be amended to be consistent with Boiler MACT?

Response heard from EPA: Yes, the supplemental rule will add " submitted for incorporation" to provide shield to account for time it may take a state to make final action on permit conditions related to risk; traditionally states have to " deem complete" application under Title V even if supplemental information requested.

7. Will the stack height calculations be adjusted to be a toxicity weighted average like in Boiler MACT? Will ground level emission points be excluded in calculating average stack heights?

Response heard from EPA: Yes, although weighting may be different for different endpoints; to be added to supplemental rule.

Lower priority question:

8. What weather data should sources use in modeling?

Response heard from EPA: Can use HEM with canned meteorological data ( nearest met station); however, for complex terrain may want to use met data that matches situation. Mill would have the option to consult with EPA for advance approval ( meteorologists in air quality modeling group; Dave Guinnup to follow up on possible future consultations. Note: The AF& PA suggested responses in this attachment do not necessarily reflect final EPA decisions or EPA responses to the questions. General ( non risk) questions:

1. Do lumber kilns need to file a Part I hammer application ( FR 45962 preamble)?

AF& PA Response: No, the standard initial notification is sufficient; clarify in supplemental rule.

2. Must a mill provide notice of performance testing at least 60 days in advance and referenced 63.2280( c)? 63.2280( c) describes requirements for performance tests. Appendix B does not described the HAP emission tests as performance tests. Does EPA expect an initial notification for Appendix B?

Response heard from EPA: No, at least in terms of emission tests for risk subcategory demonstrations [ Dave Guinnup at Portland meeting]

3. What is the first substantive compliance date? Is it timing for submittal of low risk demonstration or year 3 ( 10/ 07)?

AF& PA Response: 3 years is the first substantive compliance date; confirmation may be sufficient.

4. If using Atomic Absorption for metals then non detects ( ND) are zero according to the rule; however, other methods ( ICP) not included in rule so how should ND be treated?

AF& PA Response: Non detect always equal zero applies regardless of method ( not limited to atomic absorption)

5. How much of the equipment associated with a press ( loader and unloader) needs to be included in the press enclosure?

AF& PA Response: Only the unloader and the press itself are included in the definition and thus need to be covered by the enclosure, the loader does not need to be included in the enclosure. Confirm with EPA 6. If mill makes a modification to a press with a biofilter then might be forced to use an RTO if MACT does not equal BACT. Can a biofilter be defined as BACT to avoid use of RTOs across the board? MACT has been declared equal to BACT in many cases already ( Huber and Plum Creek use of biofilters)

AF& PA Response: Yes, allow biofilters as BACT. EPA needs to clarify policy 7. § 63.2262( h) specifies how to determine the control efficiency across an emission control system during the initial performance test. The equation for determining percent reduction contains a term ( CE) for capture efficiency. The text says that the CE is to be " determined for reconstituted wood product presses and board coolers as required in Table 4 to this subpart." However, the rule is silent about how to determine the CE for control systems on processes other than wood product presses and board coolers, e. g. for a credit unit in Note: The AF& PA suggested responses in this attachment do not necessarily reflect final EPA decisions or EPA responses to the questions. emissions averaging. Are we to assume 100 % capture efficiency for dryers and use a CE of 1.0 in the equation?

AF& PA Response: Yes, the capture efficiency for processes other than for reconstituted wood product presses and board coolers should be assumed to be 100% in equation 1 of § 63.2262( h). The control efficiency calculations used to determine the floor for the MACT rule assumed a capture efficiency of 100% for all dryers.

Several places in the final rule need to be corrected to make this clear.

a) From page 46015, 63.2262 ( h): CE = capture efficiency, percent ( applicable only to reconstituted wood product presses and board coolers as required in Table 4 to this subpart)

b) From page 46015, 63.2262 ( i): CE = capture efficiency, percent ( applicable only to reconstituted wood product presses and board coolers as required in Table 4 to this subpart).

c) From page 460221, 63.2292: Capture device means a hood, enclosure, or other means of collecting emissions into a duct so that the emissions can be measured. This definition is applicable only to reconstituted wood product presses and board coolers as required in Table 4 to this subpart.

d) From page 46021, 63.2292: Capture efficiency means the fraction ( expressed as a percentage) of the pollutants from an emission source that are collected by a capture device. This definition is applicable only to reconstituted wood product presses and board coolers as required in Table 4 to this subpart.

8. § 63.2250( a) states that " You must be in compliance with the compliance options, .... in this subpart at all times, except..." All processes exhibit variability, and may not meet the compliance options for every moment. For example, when valves change on an RTO, there is a fraction of a second that the emissions bypass the RTO and are not treated. The units can meet the 90% control efficiency over an hour average, but not every second. Similarly, emissions from the press are cyclic, peaking every time the press opens, and vary with product thickness. The press may be able to meet the production based compliance option ( PBCO) over an hour long average, but not every second of operation. It may meet the PBCO for an average mix board thicknesses, but not for some individual products. The rule does not specify what the averaging period should be for either PBCO or Add on Control Systems Compliance Options. The rule does specify a 6 month averaging period for the Emissions Averaging Compliance Option. What averaging period should be used for the Add on Control Systems Compliance Options and PBCO? Note: The AF& PA suggested responses in this attachment do not necessarily reflect final EPA decisions or EPA responses to the questions. AF& PA Response: A one week average period should be allowed so mill can certify compliance at all times when using PBCO or Add on Control compliance options. This averaging period does not replace the 3 hr averaging period for operating limits or the initial compliance demonstrations.

9. Appendix B specifies FTIR methods to measure benzene emissions ( specifically EPA Method 320 and ASTM Method D6348 03). These methods are complicated and may require multiple test methods when method 320 is not appropriate for measuring other HAPs ( specifically acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde and phenol). NCASI has updated its Method IM/ CAN/ WP 99.02 for selected HAPs at wood products facilities to measure benzene. The updated method is designed as a self validating method. Updated QA/ QC procedures ( Section 6.10) require duplicate sample runs, spiked sample runs and field spike samples. Benzene can be included in the spike solutions as are the other compounds of interest. In Section 2 of the method ( Applicability), benzene is listed in Table 2.1 as a compound that " the method is applicable to determining the concentration of...." Considering that EPA approved the method for the other HAPS, there is no reason EPA should exclude benzene. Can other methods such as the updated NCASI Method IM/ CAN/ WP 99.02 be used to sample for benzene? In addition, can Method 18 also be used to measure benzene since it is straightforward to use in identifying a single compound like benzene?

AF& PA Response: Yes, the updated NCASI method and Method 18 are appropriate to measure benzene and will be included in the supplemental rule. Other appropriate methods can be used, subject to obtaining approval from EPA as provided in the MACT General Provisions at 63.7( e)( 2) ii.

Following questions EPA has indicated will be included in supplemental rule:

10. Can the piping involved in pneumatic transfer of fiber following a single stage ( primary) tube dryer be considered a " secondary tube dryer"?

Response heard from EPA: No, supplemental heat, either indirect or direct, needs to be added to the air stream or applied to the pneumatic transfer tubing before a system can be classified as a secondary dryer. Supplemental rule will address.

11. Does initial notification need to include units without control obligations ( like lumber kilns)?

Response heard from EPA: Yes, will clarify in supplemental rule and implementation brochure 12. Are all shutdowns and start ups exempt from the rule requirements ( see 63.2250 ( a))? Note: The AF& PA suggested responses in this attachment do not necessarily reflect final EPA decisions or EPA responses to the questions. Response heard from EPA: Yes, however, the duration of " scheduled" shutdowns and start ups should be minimized. To be included in the supplemental rule.

Planned clarification: ( Square brackets denote words to delete; ALL CAPS denote an addition)

§ 63.2250 What are the general requirements? ( a)... The compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements do not apply during times when the process unit( s) subject to the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements are not operating, or during [ scheduled] startup and shutdown periods, and during malfunctions. [ These] SCHEDULED startup and shutdown periods must not exceed the minimum amount of time necessary for these events.

13. Should boilers and process heaters and their exhaust be part of the PWCP affected source to avoid duplicative regulation under Boiler MACT?

Response heard from EPA: Yes, exhausts from boilers and process heaters will be added to the affected source definition in the supplemental rule; Boiler MACT exempts units that are specifically identified as part of the affected source of another MACT.

Low priority questions:

14. Do you see a problem with the testing requirements for testing at the functional inlet ( 63.2262( d)( 1)) relative to plants at which separate WESPs serve individual dryers and then the emissions are combined prior to the RTO( s)? Read strictly, the language says you must sample at the functional inlet   prior to the WESP( s). Do you think states will allow you to test at the RTO inlet/ outlet and consider the RTO inlet the functional inlet?

Response heard from EPA: Yes, allow testing at functional inlet at combined units or across RTO/ RCOs; EPA made change in response to comments.

15. What is the definition of dry basis moisture content?

Response heard from EPA: EPA may address in implementation document


[Federal Register: June 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 107)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26981-26983]
[DOCID:fr05jn09-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary of Transportation

49 CFR Part 1

[Docket No. DOT-OST-1999-6189]
RIN 9991-AA55

Organization and Delegation of Powers and Duties: Federal
Railroad Administrator and Federal Transit Administrator

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule delegates all of the authorities vested in the
Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) by the Rail Safety Improvement
Act of 2008 to the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA). This final rule also delegates the authorities vested in

the Secretary by the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of
2008 to the Administrator of FRA, except for the authorities vested in
the Secretary by Title VI of that Act, which are delegated in this
final rule to the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA).

DATES: Effective Date: June 5, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bonnie Angermann, Office of General
Counsel, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE.,
Washington, DC 20590; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule updates the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) section that sets forth authorities delegated from
the Secretary of Transportation to other Departmental officials.
Specifically, all authorities vested in the Secretary by the Rail
Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Div. A of Public Law 110-432; 122 Stat.
4848 et seq. (Oct. 16, 2008), are delegated to the Administrator of
FRA. This final rule also delegates the authorities vested in the
Secretary by the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008,
Div. B of Public Law 110-432; 122 Stat. 4907 et seq. (Oct. 16, 2008),
to the Administrator of FRA, except for the authorities vested in the
Secretary under one title of that Act, which are delegated in this
final rule to the Administrator of FTA.
    Part 1 of Title 49 of the CFR describes the organization of DOT and
provides for the performance of duties imposed upon, and the exercise
of powers vested in, the Secretary. This final rule corrects a
typographical error in section 1 (``Purpose'') of this part.
    Section 1.49 of this part delegates to the Administrator of FRA the
authority to carry out various functions and activities related to the
mission of the agency. This rule delegates all authorities vested in
the Secretary by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 to the
Administrator of FRA. In addition, this rule delegates the authorities
vested in the Secretary by Titles I through V of the Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (122 Stat. 4907 et seq.) to the
Administrator of FRA. These titles address intercity rail passenger
services and related programs. This final rule adds paragraphs (oo) and
(pp) to 49 CFR 1.49 to reflect these delegations to the Administrator
of FRA.
    Section 1.51 of this part delegates to the Administrator of FTA the
authority to carry out various functions and activities related to the
mission of the agency. This rule delegates the authority vested in the
Secretary by Title VI of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement
Act of 2008 (122 Stat. 4968), as it relates to capital and preventive
maintenance projects for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority, to the Administrator of FTA. The FTA is responsible for mass
transportation programs. This rule adds paragraph (j) to 49 CFR 1.51 to
reflect these delegations.
    Since these amendments relate to DOT management, organization,
procedure, and practice, notice and comment are unnecessary under 5
U.S.C. 553(b). Further, since the final rule expedites DOT's ability to
meet the statutory intent of the applicable laws and regulations
covered by this delegation, the Secretary finds good cause under 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for the final rule to be effective on the date of
publication in the Federal Register.

Regulatory Analysis and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Policies and Procedures
of DOT (44 FR 11034). There are no costs associated with this final
rule because it simply delegates authority from one DOT official to
another.

B. Executive Order 13175

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (``Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments''). For the reasons
previously stated, this final rule does not significantly or uniquely
affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments and does not
impose substantial direct compliance costs; therefore, the funding and
consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule
under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, the provisions of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. We
also do not believe this rule would impose any costs on small entities
because it simply delegates authority from one DOT official to another.
Therefore, I certify this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains no information collection requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    DOT has determined that the requirements of Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1

    Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organization and
functions (Government agencies).

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 1, subtitle A of title
49, Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 1--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322; 46 U.S.C. 2104(a); 28 U.S.C. 2672; 31
U.S.C. 3711(a)(2); Pub. L. 101-552, 104 Stat. 2736; Pub. L. 106-159,
113 Stat. 1748; Pub. L. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597; Pub. L. 107-295, 116
Stat. 2064; Pub. L. 108-136, 117 Stat. 1392; Pub. L. 101-115, 103
Stat. 691; Pub. L. 108-293, 118 Stat. 1028; Pub. L. 109-364, 120
Stat. 2083; Pub. L. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492; Pub. L. 110-432, 122
Stat. 4848.

0
2. Revise Sec.  1.1 to read as follows:

Sec.  1.1  Purpose.

    This part describes the organization of the Department of
Transportation and provides for the performance of duties imposed upon,
and the exercise of powers vested in, the Secretary of Transportation
by law.

0
3. Amend Sec.  1.49 by adding paragraphs (oo) and (pp) as follows:

Sec.  1.49  Delegations to Federal Railroad Administrator.

* * * * *
    (oo) Carry out the functions and exercise the authority vested in
the Secretary by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-
432, Div. A, 122 Stat. 4848).
    (pp) Carry out the functions and exercise the authority vested in
the Secretary by the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of
2008 (Pub. L. 110-432, Div. B, 122 Stat. 4907), except Title VI (122
Stat. 4968) as it relates to capital and preventive maintenance
projects for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.

0
4. Amend Sec.  1.51 by adding paragraph (j) as follows:

Sec.  1.51  Delegations to Federal Transit Administrator.

* * * * *
    (j) Title VI of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act
of

2008 (Pub. L. 110-432, Div. B, 122 Stat. 4968).

Ray LaHood,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. E9-13021 Filed 6-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 44648]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18815]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Availability of a Record of Decision (ROD) and Order
for a Written Reevaluation of Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) for the Development and Expansion of Runway 9R-27L and
Associated Projects at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International
Airport

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Availability of a Record of Decision (ROD) and Order.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that it
has issued a ROD and Order for a written reevaluation of the FEIS for
the Development and Expansion of Runway 9R-27L and Associated Projects
at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, Broward County,
Florida. The FEIS for the runway expansion project was issued in June
2008. The FAA issued a ROD for this Federal action in December 2008.
The runway expansion and other associated airport projects are
currently undergoing final engineering and design. Construction
activities are scheduled to begin in the summer of 2011. The Broward
County (the Airport Sponsor) has submitted a request to the FAA for
approval of the engineering and design refinements that are minor
changes to the previously approved project. The ROD and Order approves
the engineering and design refinements to the previously approved
project disclosed in the written reevaluation and as shown on a revised
Airport Layout Plan (ALP) that has been submitted to the FAA.
Subsequent to this ROD and Order, the FAA will approve the revised ALP.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of this ROD and Order, and written
reevaluation are available for public review at the following locations
during normal business hours: Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International
Airport, 100 Aviation Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315, 954-359-
6978; Federal Aviation Administration Orlando Airports District Office,
5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, Florida, Telephone
(407) 812-6331; Federal Aviation Administration Southern Region Office,
1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The ROD and Order, and written re-evaluation will also be available on
Broward County's Web site: http://www.broward.org/Airport/Community/Pages/FEIS.aspx. The ROD and Order, and written reevaluation will also
be available for review at the FAA's Web site http://www.faa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Virginia Lane, Environmental Program
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando Airports District
Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, Florida
32822, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> Extension 129.

    Issued in Orlando, Florida on July 15, 2011.
Bart Vernace,
Acting Manager, Orlando Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2011-18815 Filed 7-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P