[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 55 (Friday, March 20, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16021-16027]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05662]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0686; FRL-10006-62-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
Determinations for Case-By-Case Sources Under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve multiple state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These revisions were submitted by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to
establish and require reasonably available control technology (RACT)
for 26 major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) pursuant to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's
conditionally approved RACT regulations. In this rulemaking action, EPA
is only proposing to approve source-specific (also referred to as
``case-by-case'') RACT determinations for 19 of the 26 major sources
submitted by PADEP. These RACT evaluations were submitted to meet RACT
requirements for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). This action is being taken under the Clean
Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 20, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2019-0686 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Emily Bertram, Permits Branch
(3AD10), Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Bertram can also be reached
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 31, 2019 EPA proposed to approve 21
case-by-case RACT determinations for sources in Pennsylvania (Approval
and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Determinations for Case-
by-Case Sources under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards; Part 1; 84 FR 37167 (July 31, 2019)). On August
30, 2019, the last day of the comment period, EPA became aware through
a comment submitted to Regulations.gov that one of the files contained
in the SIP submission--which EPA made public in the docket for that
rulemaking proposing to approve the submission (Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2017-0290-0064)--contained potential CBI. EPA restricted public access
in Regulations.gov to that file containing potential CBI the same day,
prior to the end of the comment period. On September 30, 2019, EPA
became aware through additional comments submitted to Regulations.gov
during the comment period that additional potential CBI was contained
in other files EPA had posted to Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0290-0064.
EPA restricted public access in Regulations.gov to the entire docket
that same day. In accordance with EPA's CBI regulations at 40 CFR part
2, subpart B, EPA has contacted each business affected by the inclusion
of potential CBI in the docket files to inform them that potential CBI
was made publicly available on Regulations.gov, and afforded each
business an opportunity to assert a claim of business confidentiality
for any of their information posted by EPA to Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2017-0290-0064.
    EPA is now proposing to approve 19 of the 21 Pennsylvania case-by-
case RACT determinations in this new rulemaking.\1\ EPA has established
a docket for this new rulemaking that does not include any materials
claimed as CBI (Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0686). Commenters must
submit any comments they have on EPA's proposed approval of these 19
case-by-case RACT determinations to this new docket number. Because
this is a new rulemaking, EPA will not consider any comments on its
prior proposal made at Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0290-0064. Any
prior comments will need to be resubmitted to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2019-0686 during the comment period for this proposed rulemaking
for EPA to consider them. The commenters are reminded that their
comments should not include or rely on any information considered to be
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. If
a comment includes any CBI or other restricted information, EPA will
redact the comment or withhold from the public docket those submissions
(or those portions containing the restricted information) as
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this action, EPA is proposing approval of 19 of the 21
sources it proposed approval of on July 31, 2019. EPA will take
action on the remaining two facilities in a different rulemaking
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On multiple dates, PADEP submitted multiple revisions to its SIP to
address case-by-case NOX and/or VOC RACT for 26 major
facilities. These SIP revisions are intended to address the
NOX and/or VOC RACT requirements under sections 182 and 184
of the CAA for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Table 1 below
lists each SIP submittal date and the facilities included in its
submittals. Although submitted in multiple packages by PADEP, EPA views
each facility as a separable SIP revision and may take separate final
action on one or more facilities. In this rulemaking action, EPA is
only proposing to approve case-by-case RACT determinations for 19 of
the 26 sources submitted to EPA by PADEP. The remaining seven major
sources are either now exempt from the source-specific RACT
requirements or will be acted on in a future rulemaking action, once
resubmitted to EPA by PADEP.
    For additional background information on Pennsylvania's
``presumptive'' RACT II SIP see 84 FR 20274 (May 9, 2019) and on
Pennsylvania's source-specific or ``case-by-case'' RACT determinations
see the appropriate technical support document (TSD) which is available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2019-
0686.

    Table 1--Padep SIP Submittals for Major NOX and/or VOC Sources in
 Pennsylvania Subject to Source-Specific RACT Under the 1997 and 2008 8-
                           Hour Ozone Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        SIP submittal date                 Major source  (county)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/14/2017.........................  Exelon Generation--Fairless Hills
                                     (Bucks).
11/21/2017........................  The Boeing Co. (Delaware).
                                    Cherokee Pharmaceuticals, LLC
                                     (Northumberland).
                                    Dominion Transmission--Finnefrock
                                     Station (Clinton). \a\
                                    First Quality Tissue, LLC (Clinton).
                                    JW Aluminum Company (Lycoming).
                                    Transco--Salladasburg Station 520
                                     (Lycoming). \b\

                                    Ward Manufacturing, LLC (Tioga).
                                    Wood-Mode Inc. (Snyder).
4/26/2018.........................  Foam Fabricators Inc. (Columbia).
                                    Novipax (Berks). \c\
                                    Resilite Sports Products Inc.
                                     (Northumberland).
                                    Sunoco Partners Marketing &
                                     Terminals (Delaware). \d\
                                    Texas Eastern--Bernville (Berks).
                                    Truck Accessories Group
                                     (Northumberland). \e\
6/26/2018.........................  Texas Eastern--Shermans Dale
                                     (Perry).
                                    Texas Eastern--Perulack (Juniata).
                                    Texas Eastern--Grantville (Dauphin).
                                    NRG Energy Center Paxton, LLC
                                     (Dauphin).
                                    Texas Eastern--Bechtelsville
                                     (Berks).
                                    Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corporation
                                     (Montgomery). \f\
10/29/2018........................  Containment Solutions/Mt. Union
                                     Plant (Huntingdon).
                                    Armstrong World Ind./Marietta
                                     Ceiling Plant (Lancaster).
                                    Jeraco Enterprises Inc.
                                     (Northumberland).
                                    Global Advanced Metals USA Inc.
                                     (Montgomery). \g\
                                    Blommer Chocolate Company
                                     (Montgomery).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Dominion Transmission--Finnefrock Station was withdrawn from EPA
  consideration on August 27, 2018. PADEP determined this source was no
  longer subject to source-specific RACT requirements for the 1997 and
  2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
\b\ Transco--Salladasburg Station 520 will be acted on in a future
  rulemaking action.
\c\ Novipax will be acted on in a future rulemaking action.
\d\ --Sunoco Partners Marketing and Terminal will be acted on in a
  future rulemaking action.
\e\ Truck Accessories Group was withdrawn from EPA consideration on July
  11, 2019. EPA will be taking action on this source in a future
  rulemaking action, once resubmitted by PADEP for approval into the PA
  SIP.
\f\ Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corporation was withdrawn from EPA
  consideration on July 11, 2019. EPA will be taking action on this
  source in a future rulemaking action, once resubmitted by PADEP for
  approval into the PA SIP.
\g\ Global Advanced Metals USA Inc. will be acted on in a future
  rulemaking action.

I. Background

A. 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    Ground level ozone is not emitted directly into the air but is
created by chemical reaction between NOX and VOC in the
presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities, electric
utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical
solvents are some of the major sources of NOX and VOC.
Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health problems, particularly
for children, the elderly, and people of all ages who have lung
diseases such as asthma. Ground level ozone can also have harmful
effects on sensitive vegetation and ecosystems.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a standard for ground level ozone
based on 8-hour average concentrations. 62 FR 38856. The 8-hour
averaging period replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the
level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to
0.08 ppm. EPA has designated two moderate nonattainment areas in
Pennsylvania under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, namely Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE (the Philadelphia Area) and
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley (the Pittsburgh Area). See 40 CFR 81.339.
    On March 12, 2008, EPA strengthened the 8-hour ozone standards, by
revising its level to 0.075 ppm averaged over an 8-hour period (2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS). On May 21, 2012, EPA designated five marginal
nonattainment areas in Pennsylvania for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS:
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Lancaster, Reading, the Philadelphia Area,
and the Pittsburgh Area. 77 FR 30088; see also 40 CFR 81.339.
    On March 6, 2015, EPA announced its revocation of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for all purposes and for all areas in the country,
effective on April 6, 2015. 80 FR 12264. EPA has determined that
certain nonattainment planning requirements continue to be in effect
under the revoked standard for nonattainment areas under the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, including RACT.

B. RACT Requirements for Ozone

    The CAA regulates emissions of NOX and VOC to prevent
photochemical reactions that result in ozone formation. RACT is an
important strategy for reducing NOX and VOC emissions from
major stationary sources within areas not meeting the ozone NAAQS.
    Areas designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS are subject to
the general nonattainment planning requirements of CAA section 172.
Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for nonattainment areas
must include reasonably available control measures (RACM) for
demonstrating attainment of all NAAQS, including emissions reductions
from existing sources through the adoption of RACT. Further, section
182(b)(2) of the CAA sets forth additional RACT requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas classified as moderate or higher.
    Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA sets forth requirements regarding RACT
for the ozone NAAQS for VOC sources. Section 182(f) subjects major
stationary sources of NOX to the same RACT requirements
applicable to major stationary sources of VOC.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A ``major source'' is defined based on the source's
potential to emit (PTE) of NOX or VOC, and the applicable
thresholds for RACT differs based on the classification of the
nonattainment area in which the source is located. See sections
182(c)-(f) and 302 of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA applies the RACT requirements in
section 182(b)(2) to nonattainment areas classified as marginal and to
attainment areas located within ozone transport regions established
pursuant to section 184 of the CAA. Section 184(a) of the CAA
established by law the current Ozone Transport Region (OTR) comprised
of 12 eastern states, including Pennsylvania. This

requirement is referred to as OTR RACT. As noted previously, a ``major
source'' is defined based on the source's PTE of NOX, VOC,
or both pollutants, and the applicable thresholds differ based on the
classification of the nonattainment area in which the source is
located. See sections 182(c)-(f) and 302 of the CAA.
    Since the 1970's, EPA has consistently defined ``RACT'' as the
lowest emission limit that a particular source is capable of meeting by
the application of the control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See December 9, 1976 memorandum from Roger Strelow,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, to Regional
Administrators, ``Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP
Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas,'' and also 44 FR 53762
(September 17, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has provided more substantive RACT requirements through
implementation rules for each ozone NAAQS as well as through guidance.
In 2004 and 2005, EPA promulgated an implementation rule for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS in two phases (``Phase 1 of the 1997 Ozone
Implementation Rule'' and ``Phase 2 of the 1997 Ozone Implementation
Rule''). 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004) and 70 FR 71612 (November 29,
2005), respectively. Particularly, the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation
Rule addressed RACT statutory requirements under the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 70 FR 71652.
    On March 6, 2015, EPA issued its final rule for implementing the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (``the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule''). 80
FR 12264. At the same time, EPA revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
effective on April 6, 2015.\4\ The 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule
provided comprehensive requirements to transition from the revoked 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as codified in 40
CFR part 51, subpart AA, following revocation. Consistent with previous
policy, EPA determined that areas designated nonattainment for both the
1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS at the time of revocation, must retain
implementation of certain nonattainment area requirements (i.e., anti-
backsliding requirements) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as specified
under section 182 of the CAA, including RACT. See 40 CFR 51.1100(o). An
area remains subject to the anti-backsliding requirements for a revoked
NAAQS until EPA approves a redesignation to attainment for the area for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. There are no effects on applicable
requirements for areas within the OTR, as a result of the revocation of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Thus, Pennsylvania, as a state within the
OTR, remains subject to RACT requirements for both the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On February 16, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. Court) issued an opinion
on the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule. South Coast Air Quality
Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, No. 15-1115 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 16, 2018). The D.C.
Cir. Court found certain parts reasonable and denied the petition
for appeal on those. In particular, the D.C. Cir. Court upheld the
use of NOX averaging to meet RACT requirements for 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS. However, the Court also found certain other
provisions unreasonable. The D.C. Cir. Court vacated the provisions
it found unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addressing RACT, the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule is
consistent with existing policy and Phase 2 of the 1997 Ozone
Implementation Rule. In the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule, EPA
requires RACT measures to be implemented by January 1, 2017 for areas
classified as moderate nonattainment or above and all areas of the OTR.
EPA also provided in the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule that RACT
SIPs must contain adopted RACT regulations, certifications where
appropriate that existing provisions are RACT, and/or negative
declarations stating that there are no sources in the nonattainment
area covered by a specific control technique guidelines (CTG) source
category. In the preamble to the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule, EPA
clarified that states must provide notice and opportunity for public
comment on their RACT SIP submissions, even when submitting a
certification that the existing provisions remain RACT or a negative
declaration. States must submit appropriate supporting information for
their RACT submissions, in accordance with the Phase 2 of the 1997
Ozone Implementation Rule. Adequate documentation must support that
states have considered control technology that is economically and
technologically feasible in determining RACT, based on information that
is current as of the time of development of the RACT SIP.
    In addition, in the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule, EPA clarified
that states can use weighted average NOX emissions rates
from sources in the nonattainment area for meeting the major
NOX RACT requirement under the CAA, as consistent with
existing policy.\5\ EPA also recognized that states may conclude in
some cases that sources already addressed by RACT determinations for
the 1979 1-hour and/or 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS may not need to
implement additional controls to meet the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS RACT
requirement. See 80 FR 12278-12279.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ [thinsp]EPA's NOX RACT guidance ``Nitrogen Oxides
Supplement to the General Preamble'' (57 FR 55625; November 25,
1992) encouraged states to develop RACT programs that are based on
``area wide average emission rates.'' Additional guidance on area-
wide RACT provisions is provided by EPA's January 2001 economic
incentive program guidance titled ``Improving Air Quality with
Economic Incentive Programs,'' available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/eipfin.pdf. In addition, as mentioned previously,
the D.C. Cir. Court recently upheld the use of NOX
averaging to meet RACT requirements for 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, No. 15-1115 (D.C. Cir.
Feb. 16, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Applicability of RACT Requirements in Pennsylvania

    As indicated earlier, RACT requirements apply to any ozone
nonattainment areas classified as moderate or higher (serious, severe
or extreme) under CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f). Pennsylvania has
outstanding ozone RACT requirements for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is part of the OTR
established under section 184 of the CAA and thus is subject statewide
to the RACT requirements of CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f), pursuant
to section 184(b).
    At the time of revocation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (effective
April 6, 2015), only two moderate nonattainment areas remained in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for this standard, the Philadelphia and
the Pittsburgh Areas. As required under EPA's anti-backsliding
provisions, these two moderate nonattainment areas continue to be
subject to RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Given its location
in the OTR, the remainder of the Commonwealth is also treated as
moderate nonattainment area under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for any
planning requirements under the revoked standard, including RACT. The
OTR RACT requirement is also in effect under the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS throughout the Commonwealth, since EPA did not designate any
nonattainment areas above marginal for this standard in Pennsylvania.
Thus, in practice, the same RACT requirements continue to be applicable
in Pennsylvania for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. RACT
must be evaluated and satisfied as separate requirements under each
applicable standard.
    RACT applies to major sources of NOX and VOC under each
ozone NAAQS or any VOC sources subject to CTG RACT. Which
NOX and VOC sources in Pennsylvania are considered ``major''
and are therefore subject to

RACT is dependent on the location of each source within the
Commonwealth. Sources located in nonattainment areas would be subject
to the ``major source'' definitions established under the CAA. In the
case of Pennsylvania, sources located in any areas outside of moderate
or above nonattainment areas, as part of the OTR, shall be treated as
if these areas were moderate.
    In Pennsylvania, the SIP program is implemented primarily by the
PADEP, but also by local air agencies in Philadelphia County (the City
of Philadelphia's Air Management Services [AMS]) and Allegheny County,
(the Allegheny County Health Department [ACHD]). These agencies have
implemented numerous RACT regulations and source-specific measures in
Pennsylvania to meet the applicable ozone RACT requirements.
Historically, statewide RACT controls have been promulgated by PADEP in
Pennsylvania Code Title 25-- Environmental Resources, part I--
Department of Environmental Protection, Subpart C--Protection of
Natural Resources, Article III--Air Resources, (25 Pa. Code) Chapter
129. AMS and ACHD have incorporated by reference Pennsylvania
regulations, but have also promulgated regulations adopting RACT
controls for their own jurisdictions. In addition, AMS and ACHD have
submitted separate source-specific RACT determinations as SIP revisions
for sources within their respective jurisdictions, which have been
approved by EPA. See 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1).
    States were required to make RACT SIP submissions for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS by September 15, 2006. PADEP submitted a SIP revision
on September 25, 2006, certifying that a number of previously approved
VOC RACT rules continued to satisfy RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for the remainder of Pennsylvania.\6\ PADEP has met its
obligations under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for its CTG and non-CTG
VOC sources. See 82 FR 31464 (July 7, 2017). RACT control measures
addressing all applicable CAA RACT requirements under the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS have been implemented and fully approved in the
jurisdictions of ACHD and AMS. See 78 FR 34584 (June 10, 2013) and 81
FR 69687 (October 7, 2016). For the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states
were required to submit RACT SIP revisions by July 20, 2014. On May 16,
2016, PADEP submitted a SIP revision addressing RACT under both the
1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Pennsylvania. Specifically, the May
16, 2016 SIP submittal intended to satisfy sections 182(b)(2)(C),
182(f), and 184 of the CAA for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for Pennsylvania's major NOX and VOC non-CTG sources,
except ethylene production plants, surface active agents manufacturing,
and mobile equipment repair and refinishing.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The September 15, 2006 SIP submittal initially included
Pennsylvania's certification of NOX RACT regulations;
however, NOX RACT portions were withdrawn by PADEP on
June 27, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. EPA's Conditional Approval for Pennsylvania's RACT Requirements
Under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    On May 16, 2016, PADEP submitted a SIP revision addressing RACT
under both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Pennsylvania.
PADEP's May 16, 2016 SIP revision intended to address certain
outstanding non-CTG VOC RACT, VOC CTG RACT, and major NOX
RACT requirements under the CAA for both standards. The SIP revision
requested approval of Pennsylvania's 25 Pa. Code 129.96-100, Additional
RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and VOCs (the
``presumptive'' RACT II rule). Prior to the adoption of the RACT II
rule, Pennsylvania relied on the NOX and VOC control
measures in 25 Pa. Code 129.92-95, Stationary Sources of NOX
and VOCs, (the RACT I rule) to meet RACT for non-CTG major VOC sources
and major NOX sources. The requirements of the RACT I rule
remain in effect and continue to be implemented as RACT.\8\ On
September 26, 2017, PADEP submitted a supplemental SIP revision which
committed to address various deficiencies identified by EPA in their
May 16, 2016 ``presumptive'' RACT II rule SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ These requirements were initially approved as RACT for
Pennsylvania under the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 9, 2019, EPA conditionally approved the RACT II rule based
on PADEP's September 26, 2017 commitment letter. See 84 FR 20274. In
EPA's final conditional approval, EPA noted that PADEP would be
required to submit, for EPA's approval, SIP revisions to address any
facility-wide or system-wide averaging plan approved under 25 Pa. Code
129.98 and any case-by-case RACT determinations under 25 Pa. Code
129.99. PADEP committed to submitting these additional SIP revisions
within 12 months of EPA's final conditional approval, specifically May
9, 2020.
    Therefore, as authorized in CAA section 110(k)(3) and (k)(4),
Pennsylvania shall submit the following as case-by-case SIP revisions,
by May 9, 2020, for EPA's approval as a condition of approval of 25 Pa.
Code 128 and 129 in the May 16, 2016 SIP revision: (1) All facility-
wide or system-wide averaging plans approved by PADEP under 25 Pa. Code
129.98 including, but not limited to, any terms and conditions that
ensure the enforceability of the averaging plan as a practical matter
(i.e., any monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping, or testing
requirements); and (2) all source-specific RACT determinations approved
by PADEP under 25 Pa. Code 129.99, including any alternative compliance
schedules approved under 25 Pa. Code 129.97(k) and 129.99(i); the case-
by-case RACT determinations submitted to EPA for approval into the SIP
should include any terms and conditions that ensure the enforceability
of the case-by-case or source-specific RACT emission limitation as a
practical matter (i.e., any monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping, or
testing requirements). See May 9, 2019 (84 FR 20274).

II. Summary of SIP Revisions

    In order to satisfy a requirement from EPA's May 9, 2019
conditional approval, PADEP has submitted to EPA, SIP revisions
addressing case-by-case RACT requirements for major sources in
Pennsylvania subject to 25 Pa. Code 129.99. As noted in Table 1, on
multiple dates PADEP submitted to EPA, five separate SIP revisions
pertaining to Pennsylvania's case-by-case NOX and/or VOC
RACT determinations for 26 major sources located in the Commonwealth.
PADEP provided documentation in its SIP revisions to support its case-
by-case RACT determinations for affected emission units at each major
source subject to 25 Pa. Code 129.99. Specifically, in these SIP
submittals, PADEP evaluated a total of 26 major NOX and/or
VOC sources in Pennsylvania for case-by-case RACT.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As noted previously, EPA, in this action, is proposing
approval for 19 of the 26 case-by-case RACT determinations submitted
by PADEP in the applicable five SIP revisions. See Table 1 for
information specific to each SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Pennsylvania RACT SIP revisions, PADEP included a case-by-
case RACT determination for the existing emissions units at each of
these major sources of NOX and/or VOC that required a source
specific RACT determination. In PADEP's RACT determinations an
evaluation was completed to determine if previously SIP-approved, case-
by-case RACT requirements (herein referred to as RACT I) were more
stringent and

required to be retained in the sources Title V air quality permit and
subsequently, the Federally-approved SIP, or if the new case-by-case
RACT requirements are more stringent and replace the previous
Federally-approved provisions.
    EPA, in this action, is taking action on 19 major sources of
NOX and/or VOC in Pennsylvania, subject to Pennsylvania's
case-by-case RACT requirements, as summarized in Table 2.

        Table 2--Nineteen Major NOX and/or VOC Sources in Pennsylvania Subject to Case-By-Case RACT II Under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                RACT II permit
          Major Source  (county)            1-Hour ozone  RACT source?  (RACT I)     Major source pollutant (NOX and/or VOC)         (effective date)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Generation--Fairless Hills (Bucks)  Yes..................................  NOX..........................................      09-00066 (01/27/17)
The Boeing Co. (Delaware)................  Yes..................................  NOX and VOC..................................      23-00009 (01/03/17)
Cherokee Pharmaceuticals, LLC              Yes..................................  VOC..........................................      49-00007 (04/24/17)
 (Northumberland).
First Quality Tissue, LLC (Clinton)......  No...................................  VOC..........................................      18-00030 (09/18/17)
JW Aluminum Company (Lycoming)...........  No...................................  VOC..........................................      41-00013 (03/01/17)
Ward Manufacturing, LLC (Tioga)..........  No...................................  VOC..........................................      59-00004 (01/10/17)
Wood-Mode Inc. (Snyder)..................  Yes..................................  VOC..........................................      55-00005 (07/12/17)
Foam Fabricators Inc. (Columbia).........  No...................................  VOC..........................................      19-00002 (12/20/17)
Resilite Sports Products Inc.              Yes..................................  VOC..........................................      49-00004 (08/25/17)
 (Northumberland).
NRG Energy Center Paxton, LLC (Dauphin)..  Yes..................................  NOX..........................................      22-05005 (03/16/18)
Containment Solutions/Mt. Union Plant      Yes..................................  VOC..........................................      31-05005 (07/10/18)
 (Huntingdon).
Armstrong World Ind./Marietta Ceiling      Yes..................................  VOC..........................................      36-05001 (06/28/18)
 Plant (Lancaster).
Jeraco Enterprises Inc. (Northumberland).  Yes..................................  VOC..........................................      49-00014 (01/26/18)
Blommer Chocolate Company (Montgomery)...  No...................................  VOC..........................................      46-00198 (01/26/17)
Texas Eastern--Bernville (Berks).........  Yes..................................  VOC..........................................      06-05033 (03/16/18)
Texas Eastern--Shermans Dale (Perry).....  Yes..................................  NOX..........................................      50-05001 (03/26/18)
Texas Eastern--Perulack (Juniata)........  Yes..................................  NOX and VOC..................................      34-05002 (03/27/18)
Texas Eastern--Grantville (Dauphin)......  Yes..................................  NOX..........................................      22-05010 (03/16/18)
Texas Eastern--Bechtelsville (Berks).....  Yes..................................  NOX..........................................      06-05034 (04/19/18)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP consist of
an evaluation of all reasonably available controls at the time of
evaluation for each affected emissions unit, resulting in a PADEP
determination of what specific control requirements, if any, satisfy
RACT for that particular unit. The adoption of new or additional
controls or the revisions to existing controls as RACT were specified
as requirements in new or revised Federally enforceable permits
(hereafter RACT II permits) issued by PADEP to the source. The RACT II
permits, which revise or adopt additional source-specific controls,
have been submitted as part of the Pennsylvania RACT SIP revisions for
EPA's approval in the Pennsylvania SIP under 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1). The
RACT II permits submitted by PADEP are listed in the last column of
Table 2, along with the permit effective date, and are part of the
docket for this rulemaking, which is available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0686.\10\ EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference in the Pennsylvania SIP, via the
RACT II permits, source-specific RACT determinations under the 1997 and
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for certain major sources of NOX and
VOC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The RACT II permits are redacted versions of a facility's
Federally enforceable permits and reflect the specific RACT
requirements being approved into the Pennsylvania SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Evaluation of SIP Revisions

    After thorough review and evaluation of the information provided by
PADEP in its five SIP revision submittals for 19 major sources of
NOX and/or VOC in Pennsylvania, EPA finds that PADEP's case-
by-case RACT determinations and conclusions provided are reasonable and
appropriately considered technically and economically feasible
controls, while setting lowest achievable limits. EPA finds that the
proposed source-specific RACT controls for the sources subject to this
rulemaking action adequately meet the CAA RACT requirements for the
1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the major sources of
NOX and/or VOC in Pennsylvania, as they are not covered by
or cannot meet Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT regulation.
    EPA also finds that all the proposed revisions to previously SIP
approved RACT requirements, under the 1979 1-hour ozone standard (RACT
I), as discussed in PADEP's SIP revisions, will result in equivalent or
additional reductions of NOX and/or VOC emissions and should
not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or
reasonable further progress with the NAAQS or interfere with other
applicable CAA requirement in section 110(l) of the CAA.
    EPA's complete analysis of PADEP's case-by-case RACT SIP revisions
is included in the TSD available in the docket for this rulemaking
action and available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
number EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0686.

IV. Proposed Action

    Based on EPA's review, EPA is proposing to approve the Pennsylvania
SIP revisions for the 19 case-by-case RACT facilities listed in Table 2
and incorporate by reference in the Pennsylvania SIP, via the RACT II
permits, source specific RACT determinations under the 1997 and 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS for certain major sources of NOX and VOC
emissions. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. These comments will be considered before taking final
action. As EPA views each facility as a separable SIP revision, should
EPA receive comment on one facility but not others, EPA may take
separate, final action on the remaining facilities.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference source specific RACT determinations

via the RACT II permits as described in Sections II and III--Summary of
SIP Revisions and EPA's Evaluation of SIP Revisions. EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials generally available through
https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, addressing the NOX and
VOC RACT requirements for 19 case-by-case facilities for the 1997 and
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 5, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2020-05662 Filed 3-19-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


1 July 15, 2004 Analysis of 8 Hour Ozone Concentrations in Cass County, Michigan; and Muskegon County, Michigan The purpose of this paper is to summarize ozone modeling and data analyses for Cass County, Michigan; and Muskegon County, Michigan, to support reclassification of these counties from moderate to marginal nonattainment.

Introduction On April 15, 2004, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA) designated areas as attainment ( or nonattainment) of the 8 hour ozone standard. The nonattainment areas were sorted under either Subpart 1 or Subpart 2 of the Clean Air Act. The Subpart 2 areas are classified as marginal, moderate, serious, or severe based on the area's 8 hour design value calculated using the most recent three years of data. Section 181( a)( 4) of the Clean Air Act allows Subpart 2 nonattainment areas to be reclassified if that area would have been classified in another category if the design value in the area were five percent greater or less than the level on which the classification was based. For example, moderate nonattainment areas may be " bumped down" to marginal nonattainment areas, if their design value is 96 ppb or less. In West Michigan, the following counties are eligible to be bumped down from moderate to marginal: Cass County, Michigan ( 2001 2003 design value = 93 ppb); and Muskegon County, Michigan ( 95 ppb).

The USEPA identified the following criteria to support a classification adjustment ( bumpdown request by state, discontinuity ( i. e., reclassification must not result in an illogical or excessive discontinuity relative to the classifications of surrounding areas), attainment ( i. e., show that the proposed area will be able to attain by the earlier date specified for the lower classification); emission reductions ( i. e., show that the area will achieve the appropriate emission reduction necessary to attain by the earlier date); and trends. This paper contains information on ozone air quality, including trends in 8 hour ozone concentrations for the two counties in question, and modeling results for 2007, the attainment year for marginal nonattainment areas.

Ozone Air Quality A few simple parameters are presented here to characterize the change in ozone air quality over time: number of exceedance days, number of site exceedance days, and design value ( i. e., average of fourth high concentration over 3 year period).

The figure below shows: ( a) the number of exceedance and site exceedances days for the 1 hour ozone standard, ( b) the number of exceedance and site exceedances days for the 8 hour ozone standard, and ( c) the number of hot days and cooling degree days for the period 1987   2003 in the Lake Michigan region. These plots show:

  Ozone is strongly influenced by meteorology. The number of exceedance days ( and site exceedance days) is higher during the hotter summers.   There appears to be a general downward trend in 1 hour and 8 hour ozone levels from the late 1980s through the early 1990' s, but little change since then. 2 July 15, 2004   The improvement in ozone air quality since the late 1980s is consistent with the reduction in regional Volatile Organic Compound ( VOC) emissions in upwind states due to motor vehicle control programs ( e. g., inspection and maintenance, and reformulated gasoline); area source control programs; and stationary source controls. While these control programs have been successful in " shaving" the peak 1 hour ozone levels, additional emission reductions are needed to lower 8 hour ozone levels. Further progress in reducing 8 hour ozone levels is expected to come from reductions in regional Oxides of nitrogen ( NOx) emissions ( i. e., NOx SIP Call, Wisconsin's NOx rule, federal nonroad standards, and possible additional federal programs, such as the proposed Interstate Air Quality Rule). ( Note, additional discussion of these trends and the expected future improvements is provided in a Lake Michigan Air Directors' Consortium ( LADCO) document titled " Mid Course Review for 1 Hour Ozone in the Lake Michigan Region", May 10, 2004.)

0 10 20 30 40 50 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1 hr Exceedance Days 0 50 100 150 200 250 1 hr Site Exceedance Days Exceedance Days Site Exceedance Days 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 8 hr Exceedance Days 0.00 150.00 300.00 450.00 600.00 750.00 900.00 8 hr Site Exceedance Days Exceedance Days Site Exceedance Days 3 July 15, 2004 0 10 20 30 40 50 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Days > 90 F 0.00 300.00 600.00 900.00 1200.00 1500.00 Cooling Degree Days Days > 90F Cooling Degree Days Figure 1. Trends in Ozone and Weather in Lake Michigan Region Spatial plots of 8 hour design values below also indicate a decrease since the late 1980s, but little change since then. 4 July 15, 2004 Figure 2. 8 Hour Design Values for 1987 1989, 1990 1992, 1993 1995, 1996 1998, and 1999 2001 5 July 15, 2004 For the two counties in question, the trends in 8 hour ozone ( e. g., number of days above standard and design value) indicate a decrease from the late 1980s through the early 1990' s, but little change since then.

0 6 12 18 24 30 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 8 Hour Exceedance Days Cass County Muskegon County 70 85 100 115 130 80 82 81 83 82 84 83 85 84 86 85 87 86 88 87 89 88 90 89 91 90 92 91 93 92 94 93 95 94 96 95 97 96 98 97 99 98 00 99 01 00 02 01 03 Design Value Cass County Muskegon County Figure 3. Trends in 8   Hour Ozone in Two Counties Given the effect of meteorology on ozone, it is necessary to adjust the ozone trends for meteorological influences. A simple metric was considered here ( i. e., number of exceedance days divided by the number of hot days). The plot of this metric below shows that the 8 hour trends are relatively flat over the past decade. 6 July 15, 2004 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Cass County Muskegon County Figure 4. Trends in Weather Adjusted Ozone Metric ( No. Exc. Days/ No. Hot Days) in Two Counties More rigorous ( statistical) adjustments were used to support ozone trends analyses for sites in the Lake Michigan region ( see " Mid Course Review for 1 Hour Ozone in the Lake Michigan Region", May 10, 2004). The analyses show a slight downward trend in 8 hour ozone levels over the past 10 years for Muskegon, although the trend is not statistically significant. These results suggest that additional emission reductions ( i. e., regional NOx emissions) are needed to improve ozone air quality in the region. The effect of these emission reductions is discussed in the following section.

Modeling Results I A preliminary 8 hour assessment was conducted by LADCO using regional modeling data and the USEPA's recommended 8 hour attainment test ( see " 8 Hour Ozone Assessment", May 2, 2001). 1 The modeled future year design values for 2007 are shown in the table below.

Observed Future Year Design Value ( 2007) Site County Design Value CAA Controls Regional Strategy2 Cassopolis Cass 93 88 81 Muskegon Muskegon 97 92 86 1 This modeling was performed to support the 1 hour attainment demonstration for the Lake Michigan area and, as such, there are limitations with using it to assess 8 hour ozone. For example, the episodes and modeling domain were selected for the Lake Michigan area and may not accurately represent other cities in the modeling domain, such as St. Louis and Detroit, and the modeling reflects a 2007 future year scenario ( note: the actual 8 hour attainment date is expected to be about 2012). On the other hand, it should be noted that three of the four modeled episodes are representative periods for high 8 hour ozone in the Lake Michigan area and basecase model performance for 8 hour ozone was found to be as good as ( or better than) that for 1 hour ozone.

2 The 1 hour regional control strategy includes CAA controls, Tier II/ low S, NOx SIP call, and WI's NOx rule. 7 July 15, 2004 The modeling results indicate that the ( 1 hour) regional control strategy will reduce 8 hour ozone levels but may not be enough to provide for attainment of the 8 hour standard at all locations. It should be noted, however, that the observed design values are based on the average of the design values of the three 3 year periods which include 1996 ( i. e., the base inventory year used in the modeling). The three 3 year design values for each site are as follows:

Site 1994 1996 1995 1997 1996 1998 Average Cassopolis 94 94 92 93 Muskegon 101 99 91 97 The USEPA's draft modeling guidance (" Draft Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8 Hour Ozone NAAQS," May 1999, EPA 454/ R 99 004) recommends using the higher of the 3 year period " straddling" the inventory year ( i. e., 1995 1997 for a 1996 inventory) and the 3 year period used to designate the area nonattainment. The design values associated with this approach, compared to the alternative approach above generally shows similar results.

Higher of . Average of Three Site 1995 1997 2001 2003 3 year Periods Cassopolis 94 93 93 Muskegon 99 95 97 Modeling Results II Additional 8 hour ozone results are available from recent modeling conducted by LADCO to assess the impact of the USEPA's proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR)  e. g., " Interstate Air Quality Rule: Modeling Assessment," March 26, 2004.

The resulting modeled design values are shown in the table below. Observed Site County Design Value 2010 base3 2010 IAQR4 Cassopolis Cass 90 80.5 ( 79.6) 79.8 ( 79.1)

Muskegon Muskegon 89 81.0 ( 79.6) 80.1 ( 79.0) * = result based on IPM source specific data 3 The 2010 base inventory for all sectors, except EGUs, was developed using economic and population growth projections, along with emission reductions from current regulations, including the NOx SIP Call; Tier II vehicle standards; heavy duty diesel vehicle standards; non road diesel proposed standards; NOx and VOC reductions from recreational vehicle/ large spark ignition engine rules; SO2 and PM2.5 reductions from the industrial boiler MACT; mostly VOC reductions from a large number of earlier MACTs; PM, SO2, and NOx reductions from a small set of MACTs; and VOC reductions from national rules for Marine Vessel Loading of Petrol Liquids, TSDFs, and Landfills. It does not include reductions from two other recent MACTs ( Gas Turbines and Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines), but these are relatively small reductions.

4 The 2010 CAIR strategy includes the 2010 base, plus the SOx and NOx reductions from the proposed Interstate Air Quality Rule. 8 July 15, 2004 These results, which are consistent with the USEPA's modeling for the proposed rule ( see " Technical Support Document for the CAIR, Air Quality Modeling Analyses" January 2004), show that the two counties in question are expected to be in compliance with the 8 hour ozone standard by 2010.

The relevance of this modeling for 2007 needs to consider the difference in emissions ( especially, NOx emissions) between 2007 and 2010. An approximation of this difference can be made comparing the 2007 inventory developed by the USEPA for its heavy duty diesel ( HDD) rulemaking and the 2010 ( base) inventory developed by the USEPA for the proposed CAIR. ( Note, the derivation of the 2010 CAIR inventory relied on the 2007 HDD inventory5, as well as the 2010 inventory developed by the USEPA for its proposed land based nonroad diesel engine ( LNDE) rulemaking6.) A simple comparison of the 2007 HDD ( with an adjustment for nonroad emissions) and the 2010 CAIR inventories shows about a nine percent difference in NOx emissions. ( Note, the VOC emissions for these two inventory years are within a few percent of each other). Furthermore discussion of the difference in NOx emissions is provided below by source sector.

Point Sources: NOx emissions from EGUs are about eight percent less in the 2010 CAIR ( base) inventory compared to the 2007 HDD inventory. The major control program affecting EGUs is the NOx SIP call. The NOx SIP Call requires 22 States and the District of Columbia to submit State Implementation Plans that address the regional transport of ground level ozone through reductions in NOx emissions. The rule affects EGUs, as well as large non utility point sources ( i. e., large industrial boilers and turbines, large internal combustion engines, and cement manufacturing). The compliance date for the NOx emission budgets is May 2004.

On Road Highway Vehicles: NOx emissions from on road sources are about 17 percent less in the 2010 CAIR ( base) inventory compared to the 2007 HDD inventory. The major control programs affecting on road sources are Tier 2/ low sulfur gasoline and the HDD rule ( 2007 Heavy Duty Highway Rule). The Tier 2/ low sulfur gasoline program establishes new tailpipe standards for all classes of passenger vehicles, light duty trucks, and SUVs that will be phased in between 2004 and 2007, and requires that the level of sulfur in gasoline be reduced by up to 90 percent in phases between 2004 and 2007. The HDD rule establishes new emission standards for heavy duty highway engines and vehicles that will be phased in between 2007 and 2010, and requires that the level of sulfur in highway diesel fuel be reduced by 97 percent by mid 2006.

5 See " Procedures for Developing Base Year and Future Year Mass and Modeling Inventories for the Heavy Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and the Highway Diesel Fuel ( HDD) Rulemaking" ( EPA/ 420 R 00 020, October 2000) and " Data Summaries of Base Year and Future Year Mass and Modeling Inventories for the Heavy Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and the Highway Diesel Fuel ( HDD) Rulemaking   Detailed Report" ( EPA/ 420 R 00 019, October 2000).

6 See USEPA's " Regulatory Impact Analysis" EPA420 R 04 007, May 2004 9 July 15, 2004 Nonroad Sources: NOx emissions from nonroad sources are about six percent less in the 2010 CAIR ( base) inventory compared to the 2007 HDD inventory. The major control program affecting nonroad sources is the USEPA's May 2004 Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule. This rule requires pollution controls on diesel engines used in industries such as construction, agriculture and mining, and it will reduce sulfur content of diesel fuel. Standards for new engines will be phased in starting with the smallest engines in 2008, until all but the very largest diesel engines meet both NOx and PM standards in 2014. Some of the largest engines, 750+ horsepower, will have one additional year to meet the emissions standards. Diesel fuel currently contains about 3,000 parts per million ( ppm) sulfur. The new rule will cut that to 500 ppm in 2007 and 15 ppm by 2010.

This information suggests that a significant difference in NOx emissions is expected between 2007 and 2010. As such, it may be worthwhile to conduct a 2007 sensitivity analysis by adjusting ( increasing) the NOx emissions as follows: EGUs ( increase by ten percent); On Road ( increase by fifteen percent); and Non Road ( increase by five percent).

ADDITIONAL PHOTOCHEMICAL MODELING Photochemical Model Selection Several one atmosphere photochemical models treat the physical processes and chemistry that form ozone. These models include the Community Multiscale Air Quality modeling system ( CMAQ) and the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions ( CAMx4) by ENVIRON. Fast simulation times and full science make the CAMx4 model the ideal choice for modeling grid simulations over regional domains and multiple month episodes. The summers ( i. e., June through August) of 2001 and 2002 were used for this analysis to capture the variety of high ozone episodes that occurred across the Upper Midwest.

ENVIRON developed an ozone source attribution approach that has become known as the " Ozone Source Apportionment Technology," or OSAT ( Yarwood et al., 1996). This method was originally implemented in the urban airshed model and was then built into CAMx. The OSAT provides a method for estimating the contributions of multiple source areas, categories, and pollutant types to ozone formation in a single model run. The OSAT also includes a methodology for diagnosing the temporal relationships between ozone and emissions from groups of sources.

The OSAT allows CAMx to track source region and/ or source emissions category contributions to predicted grid cell ozone concentration; thus, for any selected receptor point and time, the model gives a clear picture of the likely distribution of ozone and ozone precursors by source emissions category and/ or source region, as well as an indication as to whether the ozone at the selected time and location would more likely respond to upwind NOx or VOC controls.

The CAMx ( version 4.03), with the OSAT technology, was used in this analysis to determine the geographic source ( i. e., Chicago) contribution of ozone precursors and source emissions type ( i. e., on road mobile) contribution at specific locations such as the Cassopolis and Muskegon monitors. 10 July 15, 2004 CAMx OSAT Results for Cassopolis Monitor ( Cass County) To provide high credibility the OSAT results, only modeled results from days where the CAMx predicted concentrations within 20 percent of actual and the Cassopolis monitor recorded an actual concentration of 85 ppb or greater were used. This screening criteria yielded 18 modeled days for analysis during the simulated summers of 2001 and 2002. Results from these 18 days were weighted by actual ozone concentration to give greater value to the higher ozone days.

Geographic regions were broken down by states surrounding Michigan and by counties within Michigan. Emission types were broken down by: biogenics, on road mobile, non road mobile, low level point sources, elevated point sources, and area sources. Results of local contribution compared to transport concentrations from surrounding areas are as follows:

Contribution Percentage to Cassopolis Monitor by Geographic Area and by Emissions Type Biogenics On Road Non Road Low Point Elevated Point Area TOTAL Local Contribution Cass & St. Joseph Counties 0.05% 0.27% 0.15% 0.02% 0.02% 0.07% 0.58% Out of State Transport Chicago Area 0.05% 3.06% 2.22% 0.50% 2.51% 1.32% 9.66% Illinois ( excluding Chicago) 0.51% 2.01% 1.75% 0.39% 3.42% 0.55% 8.63% Indiana 0.80% 8.65% 5.52% 0.41% 6.52% 2.83% 24.73% Ohio 0.03% 0.59% 0.42% 0.01% 0.52% 0.29% 1.86% Wisconsin 0.11% 0.88% 0.57% 0.02% 0.43% 0.01% 0.38%

Leftover contributions are from the following areas; 4.04 percent from remaining Michigan counties; 17.86 percent from other non listed states; and 32.26 percent from background.

As shown, less than one percent of the ozone recorded at the Cassopolis monitor can be attributed to local ( i. e., Cass Co. plus St. Joseph Co.) emissions. With a design value of 93 ppb, ALL Michigan emissions contributions to the Cassopolis monitor ( e. g., 4.62 percent of total) could be eliminated and the monitor would still be in violation of the 8 hour standard. The modeling evidence, in conjunction with common sense analysis, demonstrates overwhelming out of state transport.

CAMx OSAT Results for Muskegon Monitor ( Muskegon County) Similar to the previous analysis, only modeled results from days where the CAMx predicted concentrations within 20 percent of actual and the Muskegon monitor recorded an actual concentration of 85 ppb or greater were used. This screening criteria yielded 12 modeled days for analysis during the simulated summers of 2001 and 11 July 15, 2004 2002. Results from these 12 days were weighted by actual ozone concentration to give greater value to the higher ozone days.

Geographic regions were broken down by states surrounding Michigan and by counties within Michigan. Emission types were broken down by: biogenics, on road mobile, nonroad mobile, low level point sources, elevated point sources, and area sources. Results of local contribution compared to transport concentrations from surrounding areas are as follows:

Contribution Percentage to Muskegon Monitor by Geographic Area and by Emissions Type Biogenics On Road Non Road Low Point Elevated Point Area TOTAL Local Contribution Muskegon County 0.01% 0.30% 0.10% 0.01% 0.17% 0.06% 0.65% Out of State Transport Chicago Area 0.05% 5.40% 4.32% 0.82% 3.16% 2.73% 16.48% Illinois ( excluding Chicago) 0.25% 1.80% 1.52% 0.33% 2.65% 0.58% 7.13% Indiana 0.13% 3.84% 2.67% 0.19% 4.23% 1.78% 12.84% Ohio 0.01% 0.89% 0.64% 0.02% 0.77% 0.46% 2.79% Wisconsin 0.05% 1.18% 0.69% 0.02% 0.57% 0.60% 3.11%

Leftover contributions are from the following areas; 11.07 percent from remaining Michigan counties; 18.11 percent from non listed states; and 27.82 percent from background.

As shown, less than one percent of the ozone recorded at the Muskegon monitor can be attributed to local ( i. e., Muskegon Co.) emissions. With a design value of 95 ppb, ALL Michigan emissions contributions to the Muskegon monitor ( e. g., 11.72 percent of total) could be eliminated and the monitor would still have a design value of 84 ppb, barely below non attainment threshold. The modeling evidence, in conjunction with common sense analysis, demonstrates overwhelming out of state transport.

Grid Projection and Domains The CAMx model was applied with a Lambert projection centered at ( 97, 40) and true latitudes at 33 and 45. The photochemical modeling domain consists of 97 cells in the X direction and 90 cells in the Y direction covering the Central and Eastern United States with 36 km grid cells. This is shown in the figure to the right as the dark yellow box. The lighter yellow box shows the MM5 modeling domain. The emissions modeling domain is similar to the MM5 domain, but with 9 fewer cells in each direction. 12 July 15, 2004 CAMx4 is applied with the vertical atmosphere resolved with 16 layers up to approximately 15 kilometers above ground level.

Grid Cell Size X, Y Origin ( km) X, Y Offset ( from MM5 grid) NX, NY Meteorological 36 km ( 2952.,  2304.) N/ A 165, 129 Emissions 36 km ( 2628., 1980.) 9, 9 147, 111 Photochemical 36 km ( 900., 1620.) 57, 19 97, 90 Meteorological Inputs Meteorological input data for the CAMx photochemical modeling runs were processed using the NCAR's 5th generation Mesoscale Model ( MM5) version 3.5 ( Dudhia, 1993). Key model parameters and options used in MM5 are shown in the table below. A more detailed discussion of MM5 applications to support photochemical modeling may be found in the MM5 Modeling Protocol at www. ladco. org ( Baker, 2004). The parameterizations and modules selected were determined to be an optimal model configuration for the Upper Midwest based on extensive sensitivity simulations ( Johnson, 2003).

The meteorological fields output by MM5 are prepared for use by the photochemical model with processing utilities. These programs translate certain meteorological parameters from the MM5 grid to the photochemical grid. Additionally, these processors must estimate parameters that are not explicitly output by MM5. Since the meteorological processing programs for each model not only translate data, but also diagnose certain key parameters, this step must be scrutinized to achieve optimal model results.

Emissions Inputs Emissions data was processed using EMS 2003. The EMS 2003 model is selected for its ability to efficiently process the large requirements of regional and daily emissions processing. In addition to extensive quality assurance and control capabilities, EMS 2003 also performs basic emissions processes such as chemical speciation, spatial allocation, temporal allocation, and control of area, point, and motor vehicle emissions ( Janssen, 1998). Outputs from EMS 2003 include a coordinate based elevated point source file and gridded emissions estimates for low point, area, mobile, and biogenics sources. Anthropogenic emission estimates are made for a weekday, Saturday, and Sunday for each month. The biogenic emissions are day specific. Volatile organic compounds are speciated to the CB4 chemical speciation profile. Configuration 36km and 12km Domains Explicit Moisture Simple ice Cumulus Kain Fritsch PBL Pleim Chang ( ACM) Radiation RRTM Multi Layer Soil Model Pleim Xu Shallow convection No 4 D Data Assimilation Analysis nudging on above PBL Moist Physics Table No 13 July 15, 2004 SPECIE DESCRIPTION ALD2 Aldehydes ETH Ethylene FORM Formaldehyde ISOP Isoprene OLE Olefins  Anthropogenic OLE2 Olefins  Biogenic ( OVOC)

PAR Paraffins TOL Toluene XYL Xylene NH3 Ammonia CO Carbon monoxide NO2 Nitrogen dioxide NO Nitrogen oxide SULF Sulfur SO2 Sulfur dioxide PEC Primary PM fine elemental carbon PNO3 Primary PM fine nitrate POA Primary PM fine organic aerosol PSO4 Primary PM fine sulfate CCRS Primary PM coarse crustal FCRS Primary PM fine crustal CPRM Primary PM coarse " other"

FPRM Primary PM fine " other" The point source inventory is based on the 1999 National Emission Inventory version 2.0. Temporal profiles were applied to all CEM units located in the Upper Midwest ( IL, IN, WI, MI, OH, MN, IA, MO, KY, TN, WV, PA) by hour of the day, day of the week, and month of the year. The 1995 Canadian point sources are included in the elevated point source inventory. No Mexican point source emissions are included.

Area sources include all categories that are not included in the point, on road, off road, biogenic, or ammonia inventory. Categories such as solvent utilization and non point fuel combustion are included in the area inventory. The area source inventory is based on the 1999 National Emission Inventory. A 90 percent reduction factor to all dust categories was applied to the inventory to remove the non transportable fraction of these emissions. This area inventory also includes all non point emissions from the Canadian inventory, which includes non road, on road, and ammonia estimates.

On road emissions are estimated with the MOBILE6 using MM5 output surface temperature and 15 m relative humidity. The default temporal tables were modified to represent a more complex distribution of vehicle miles traveled for weekend. Off road emissions are estimated with the latest release of USEPA's NONROAD 2002 model.

The biogenic emissions were estimated with EMS 2003 using BIOME3/ BEIS3 and the BELD3 land use dataset. Other inputs to the biogenic emissions model include hourly satellite photosynthetically activated radiation ( PAR) and 15 m temperature data output from MM5. The 15 m temperature data was selected for its spatial representation of the tree canopy layer.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 4 (Monday, January 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 973-974]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31749]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68551; File No. SR-MIAX-2012-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Extend the Penny Pilot Program

December 31, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on December 21, 2012, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Rule 510,
Interpretations and Policies .01 to extend the pilot program for the
quoting and trading of certain options in pennies (the ``Penny Pilot
Program'') and to adopt a procedure for replacing in the Penny Pilot
Program option classes that have been delisted.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is a participant in an industry-wide pilot program
that provides for the quoting and trading of certain option classes in
penny increments (the ``Penny Pilot Program'' or ``Program'').
Specifically, the Penny Pilot Program allows the quoting and trading of
certain option classes in minimum increments of $0.01 for all series in
such option classes with a price of less than $3.00; and in minimum
increments of $0.05 for all series in such option classes with a price
of $3.00 or higher. Options overlying the PowerShares QQQ Trust
(``QQQQ'')[supreg], SPDR S&P 500 Exchange Traded Funds (``SPY''), and
iShares Russell 2000 Index Funds (``IWM''), however, are quoted and
traded in minimum increments of $0.01 for all series regardless of the
price. The Penny Pilot Program was initiated at the then existing
option exchanges in January 2007 and currently includes more than 300
of the most active option classes. The Penny Pilot Program is currently
scheduled to expire on December 31, 2012. The purpose of the proposed
rule change is to extend the Penny Pilot Program in its current format
through June 30, 2013.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 510,
Interpretations and Policies .01 to describe the process by which Penny
Pilot Program option classes that have been delisted can be replaced.
The process, which is currently in place at other option exchanges
participating in the Penny Pilot Program, provides a date on which an
option class in the Penny Pilot Program that has been delisted will be
replaced by the next most actively traded, multiply-listed option class
that is not yet in the Penny Pilot Program. The replacement classes
will be added to the Penny Pilot Program on the second trading day
following January 1, 2013. Determination of the next most actively
traded option class will be based on trading activity in the previous
six months excluding the month immediately prior to the replacement
date. Thus, replacement issues will be selected based on trading
activity for the six month period beginning June 1, 2012, and ending
November 30, 2012. All classes currently participating in the Penny
Pilot Program will remain the same and all minimum increments will
remain unchanged. The Exchange believes its participation in the Penny
Pilot Program will benefit public customers and other market
participants in that they will be able to express their true prices to
buy and sell options in those classes that are part of the Program.
2. Statutory Basis
    MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \5\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, and it is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or dealers. In
particular, the proposed rule change, which extends the Penny Pilot
Program for six months, allows the Exchange to participate in a program
that has been viewed as beneficial to traders, investors and public
customers and viewed as successful by the other options exchanges
participating in it. In addition, the adoption of a process by which
Penny Pilot Program option classes that have been delisted can be
replaced, allows the Program to continue to provide for the quoting and
trading of the most active option classes in pennies. It also provides
an organized process, which is uniform across the options exchanges,
for the introduction of new option classes into the Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Further, by extending the Penny
Pilot Program for six months, MIAX, as a new entrant to the market, is
able to participate in the Penny Pilot Program as it begins to roll-out
trading in those active option classes that are part of the Program.
MIAX's overall participation in the Penny Pilot Program enhances
competition in that it provides another venue for trading active option
classes expressed by market participants at their true prices.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing.\10\
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\11\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because doing so will
allow the Pilot Program to continue without interruption in a manner
that is consistent with the Commission's prior approval of the
extension and expansion of the Pilot Program and will allow the
Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze the impact of
the Pilot Program.\12\ Accordingly, the Commission designates the
proposed rule change as operative upon filing with the Commission.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this pre-filing requirement.
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61061 (November 24,
2009), 74 FR 62857 (December 1, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-44).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2012-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2012-04. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2012-04 and should be
submitted on or before January 28, 2013.

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant
to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-31749 Filed 1-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


  OMB Control No. 2060-0586
ENERGY STAR(R) Partnership Agreement
  For ENERGY STAR HVAC Quality Installation (QI) Program Partners

                                    Mail this form to:
                       ENERGY STAR HVAC QI Program Manager
                               US EPA (Mail Code 6202J)
                    1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20460
Or	Fax this form to:
<PHONE_NUMBER>

  Organization
  Name: 		 Address: 	City/State/Zip:

  Telephone:

Fax:_ 	Web Site:

  Major Area(s) Served:

  Authorized Company/Organization Representative (printed name):

  Title:
E-mail:

  Signature:
Date:

  To be completed by U.S. EPA:

  EPA Representative; ENERGY STAR Residential Branch, Climate Partnership Program Division

  Signature:

Date:

  ENERGY STAR HVAC QI Program Goals
  ENERGY STAR helps consumers, businesses, and public organizations protect the environment through superior energy efficiency.  The ENERGY STAR HVAC QI program seeks to improve HVAC installation practices to deliver greater energy efficiency and comfort to consumers and to provide a new energy efficiency program strategy to utilities.

  Notes:
    -  The ENERGY STAR HVAC QI Program is applicable to residential installations of central air conditioning, furnace, air-source heat pump, geothermal heat pump and boiler systems. Installations may be in single-family houses or in multifamily buildings in which each unit has its own self-contained HVAC system.
    -  Program sponsors may choose to include systems in existing homes and/or new construction. Requirements are more stringent for new construction and for existing homes with new or modified ductwork.
  -  If a home has multiple zones with separate HVAC systems, each system must be verified as a separate unit.
    -  Although the ENERGY STAR HVAC QI Program does not require contractors to install ENERGY STAR qualified equipment we strongly encourage program partners to promote ENERGY STAR qualified equipment in tandem with quality installation.

  ENERGY STAR Commitments to Partners

        1.	Increase awareness of the ENERGY STAR HVAC Quality Installation Program by distributing key messages on the benefits of proper installation practices and verification.
        2.	Provide current ENERGY STAR news, information, and reference documents (via the ENERGY STAR Web site, Hotline, e-mail or other means).
    3.	Provide ENERGY STAR partners with public recognition for their involvement in ENERGY STAR.
    4.	Respond swiftly to any partner request for information or clarification on ENERGY STAR policies.

  Definitions:
  For the purpose of this agreement the following terms are defined as follows:

  ANSI
  The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) facilitates the development of American National Standards by
  accrediting the procedures of standards developing organizations. Accreditation by ANSI signifies that the procedures used by the standards body in connection with the development of American National Standards meet the Institute's essential requirements for openness, balance, consensus and due process.

  ENERGY STAR HVAC QI Guidelines
  Requirements for installations under the program must meet Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA) Standard 5: HVAC Quality Installation Specification or equivalent standard approved by EPA.

  File Verification
  File verification is a review of load calculations, equipment selection and the commissioning report. This review includes confirming that all required installation elements were performed using an approved method and checking for data
  inconsistencies.

  Field Verification
  Field verification is an in-field verification of the installation that follows established protocols.

  Terms of the Agreement:
  The following are the terms of the ENERGY STAR Partnership Agreement as it pertains to ENERGY STAR HVAC Quality Installation (QI) Program Partners. The ENERGY STAR Partner under HVAC QI is defined as a program sponsor who agrees to the following commitments, and is legally independent from contractors performing installations and third-party verifiers verifying installations under this program.

  The ENERGY STAR Partner may issue an ENERGY STAR Quality Installation Certificate for a residential central air conditioning, furnace, air-source heat pump, geothermal heat pump or boiler system if the following criteria are met:

     1)   The participating contractor has signed a participation agreement with the ENERGY STAR Partner implementing the program.
        a)	The participation agreement between the contractor and the ENERGY STAR partner must include at a minimum:
        i)	Entry and training requirements ii)	Installation requirements
        iii)  Documentation requirements
        iv)  Sampling and verification requirements v)	A conflict resolution process
        vi)  A process for dismissal from the program if the terms of the participation agreement are not adhered to

  2)   The system is installed by a technician working as or for a state licensed contractor, where a license is required.

     3)   The system is verified to meet the ENERGY STAR HVAC QI Guidelines by an eligible and qualified third party verifier.
     a)	The criteria for meeting the ENERGY STAR HVAC QI Guidelines are established by:
        i)	ACCA Standard 5 or comparable ANSI-recognized, HVAC specification related to the proper installation
     of residential and commercial heating, ventilation, and air conditioning b)   To be considered eligible under the program the third party verifier must:
        i)	Be an autonomous organization/individual with no financial or ownership connections to the contractors
                              participating in the program
        ii)	Demonstrate knowledge and ability to verify each element of the ENERGY STAR HVAC QI Guidelines

  Terms of the Agreement (continued):
  4)   Sampling Rates and Verification Protocols.
     a)	A file verification must be performed on each installation.
        b)   The program requires that all Partners meet, at a minimum, the following sampling rates on field verifications, or offer an alternate verification schedule for EPA approval:
           i)	Phase 1  -  Field verification will be conducted on 3 of the first 5 installations submitted by a new contractor participant.
        ii)	Phase 2  -  After successful completion of Phase 1, the Partner must perform field verification on at least 5%
                          of installations by each contractor.
        c)	A contractor is not eligible to move to the next phase, or lower sampling rate, until they can demonstrate to the Program Partner that they are consistently meeting all program requirement and technical standards.
     d)   All Installation must be verified using the verification protocols outlined in the ENERGY STAR HVAC QI
        Sponsor Guide document.

     5)   The Partner has submitted a detailed implementation plan to EPA describing how they will implement sections 1 through 4 of this agreement. The Partner may not proceed with the program until this plan has been approved by EPA.

  Other Partner requirements under this agreement:
    :: Provide EPA, on a quarterly basis, market indicators to assist in determining the effects of the program in promoting quality HVAC installations.  EPA will only use the data for program evaluation purposes. The following data should be submitted in electronic format:
        	Number of participating contractors
        	Number of installations performed
        	Number of installations inspected
        	Number of installations failing verification
        	Number of certificates issued
        	Reasons for installation failures and the action that was taken to resolve the problem

    :: Adhere to the ENERGY STAR Identity Guidelines (available at www.energystar.gov/marks) and ensure that authorized representatives, such as advertising agencies also comply.

    :: Prior to use, submit all marketing materials developed for Partner's ENERGY STAR promotions to ENERGY STAR for review to ensure accuracy of ENERGY STAR logo use and consistency of the ENERGY STAR message. Partner will allow a minimum of five full working days for ENERGY STAR to review and approve ENERGY STAR aspects of the marketing materials.

  :: Notify EPA of a change in the designated responsible party or contacts within 30 days.

  General Terms and Disclaimers
     1.  The partner will not construe, claim or imply that its participation in ENERGY STAR constitutes federal government approval, acceptance, or endorsement of anything other than the partner's commitment to ENERGY STAR. Partnership does not constitute federal government endorsement of the partner or its services.
     2.  The partner understands that the activities it undertakes in connection with ENERGY STAR are voluntary and not intended to provide services to the federal government. As such, the partner will not submit a claim for compensation to any federal agency.
   3.  The partner and ENERGY STAR will assume good faith as a general principle for resolving conflict and will seek to
     resolve all matters informally, so as to preserve maximum public confidence in ENERGY STAR.
   4.  This agreement is voluntary and can be terminated by either party at any time or any reason, with no penalty.
   5.  Failure to comply with any of the terms of this partnership agreement can result in its termination and cessation of
     access to the benefits of ENERGY STAR, including use of the marks.
   EPA Form 5900-183
The government estimates the average time needed to fill out this form is 0.50 hours and welcomes suggestions for reducing this effort. Send comments (referencing OMB Control Number) to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.

6.  ENERGY STAR will actively pursue resolution of noncompliance related to the use of the ENERGY STAR marks.