[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 32409]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11623]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-932-000.
    Applicants: Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Compliance Filing to Implement
Revised Tariff Records to be effective 7/2/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/24/22.
    Accession Number: 20220524-5040.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/22.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 24, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-11623 Filed 5-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 26, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 80)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 23222-23225]
[DOCID:fr26ap11-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM10-29-000]

Electric Reliability Organization Interpretation of Transmission
Operations Reliability

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to approve the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation's (NERC's) proposed
interpretation of Reliability Standard, TOP-001-1, Requirement R8.

DATES: Comments are due June 27, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and in
accordance with the requirements posted on the Commission's web site,
http://www.ferc.gov. Comments may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Electronic Submission: Documents created electronically
using word processing software should be filed in native applications
or print-to-PDF format, and not in a scanned format, at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters unable to file comments
electronically must mail or hand deliver an original copy of their
comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. These
requirements can be found on the Commission's Web site, see, e.g., the
``Quick Reference Guide for Paper Submissions,'' available at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp, or via phone from FERC Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert T. Stroh (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Eugene Blick (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
David O'Connor (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff,
Chairman; Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris, and Cheryl
A. LaFleur.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Issued April 21, 2011)

    1. Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to approve the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation's (NERC's) proposed
interpretation of Requirement R8 in Commission-approved NERC
Reliability Standard TOP-001-1 -- Reliability Responsibilities and
Authorities.\2\ The Commission proposes to approve the interpretation
as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o (2006).
    \2\ The Commission is not proposing any new or modified text to
its regulations. As provided in 18 CFR part 40, proposed
interpretation of a Reliability Standard will not become effective
until approved by the Commission, and the ERO must post on its Web
site each effective Reliability Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory and enforceable
Reliability Standards, which are subject to Commission review and
approval. If approved, the Reliability Standards are enforced by the
ERO, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission
independently.
    3. Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, the Commission established a
process to select and certify an ERO \3\ and, subsequently, certified
NERC as the ERO.\4\ On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No.
693, approving 83 of the 107 Reliability Standards filed by NERC,
including Reliability Standard TOP-001-1.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,212 (2006).
    \4\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC
 61,062, order on reh'g & compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126
(2006), aff'd sub nom., Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (DC Cir.
2009).
    \5\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242, order on reh'g, Order
No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. NERC's Rules of Procedure provide that a person that is
``directly and materially affected'' by Bulk-Power System reliability
may request an interpretation of a Reliability Standard.\6\ The ERO's
``standards process manager'' will assemble a team with relevant
expertise to address the requested interpretation and also form a
ballot pool. NERC's Rules provide that, within 45 days, the team will
draft an interpretation of the Reliability Standard, with subsequent
balloting. If approved by ballot, the interpretation is appended to the
Reliability Standard and filed with the applicable regulatory authority
for regulatory approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NERC Rules of Procedure, Appendix 3A, Reliability Standards
Development Procedure, Version 6.1, at 27-29 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Reliability Standard TOP-001-1

    5. Reliability Standard TOP-001-1 (Reliability Responsibilities and
Authorities) centers on the responsibilities of balancing authorities
and transmission operators during a system emergency. Specifically, the
stated purpose of Reliability Standard TOP-001-1 is to ensure
reliability entities have clear decision-making authority and
capabilities to take appropriate actions or direct the actions of
others to return the transmission

system to normal conditions during an emergency. Requirement R8 of the
standard provides:

    During a system emergency, the Balancing Authority and
Transmission Operator shall immediately take action to restore the
Real and Reactive Power Balance. If the Balancing Authority or
Transmission Operator is unable to restore Real and Reactive Power
Balance it shall request emergency assistance from the Reliability
Coordinator. If corrective action or emergency assistance is not
adequate to mitigate the Real and Reactive Power Balance, then the
Reliability Coordinator, Balancing Authority, and Transmission
Operator shall implement firm load shedding.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Reliability Standard TOP-001-1, Requirement R8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. NERC Proposed Interpretation

    6. NERC submitted its petition for approval for an interpretation
of Requirement R8 in Commission-approved Reliability Standard TOP-001-1
on July 16, 2010. Consistent with the NERC Rules of Procedure, NERC
states that it assembled a team to respond to the request for
interpretation and presented the proposed interpretation to industry
ballot, using a process similar to the process it uses for the
development of Reliability Standards.\8\ According to NERC, the
interpretation was developed and approved by industry stakeholders
using the NERC Reliability Standards Development Procedure and approved
by the NERC Board of Trustees (Board). In the NERC Petition, NERC
explains that it received a request from Florida Municipal Power Pool
(FMPP) seeking an interpretation of Reliability Standard TOP-001-1,
Requirement R8. Specifically, FMPP requested clarification on several
aspects of Requirement R8. FMPP asked the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NERC Reliability Standards Development Procedure at 27-29.

    Balancing real power is not a function of a [Transmission
Operator] and balancing reactive power is not a function of a
[Balancing Authority]. For Requirement R8 is the Balancing Authority
responsibility to immediately take corrective action to restore Real
Power Balance and is the [Transmission Operator] responsibility to
immediately take corrective action to restore Reactive Power
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Balance? \9\

    \9\ NERC Petition at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. In response to FMPP's interpretation request, NERC provided the
following:

    The answer to both questions is yes. According to the NERC
Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards, the Transmission
Operator is responsible for the reliability of its ``local''
transmission system, and operates or directs the operations of the
transmission facilities. Similarly, the Balancing Authority is
responsible for maintaining load-interchange-generation balance,
i.e., real power balance. In the context of this requirement, the
Transmission Operator is the functional entity that balances
reactive power. Reactive power balancing can be accomplished by
issuing instructions to the Balancing Authority or Generator
Operators to alter reactive power injection. Based on NERC
Reliability Standard BAL-005-1b Requirement R6, the Transmission
Operator has no requirement to compute an Area Control Error (ACE)
signal or to balance real power. Based on NERC Reliability Standard
VAR-001-1 Requirement R8, the Balancing Authority is not required to
resolve reactive power balance issues. According to TOP-001-
Requirement R3, the Balancing Authority is only required to comply
with Transmission Operator or Reliability Coordinator instructions
to change injections of reactive power.\10\

    \10\ Id. at 5-6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. NERC contends that the interpretation is consistent with the
stated purpose of the Reliability Standard, which is to ensure
reliability entities have clear decision-making authority and
capabilities to take appropriate actions or direct the actions of
others to return the transmission system to normal conditions during an
emergency. NERC adds that the interpretation clarifies the
responsibilities of balancing authorities and transmission operators
during a system emergency by referencing the NERC Glossary of Terms
Used in Reliability Standards as well as other relevant Reliability
Standards.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. On February 14, 2011, NERC made a supplemental filing in
response to a Commission staff data request.\12\ With regard to whether
Requirement R8 obligates a joint response in a system emergency, NERC
explained that Requirement R8 does not use the word ``joint'' or
otherwise infer joint responsibility during system emergencies. Rather,
NERC responded that the balancing authority and transmission operator
have separate responsibilities to restore real and reactive power
balance during system emergencies. NERC also stated that the use of
``and'' between the two entities should not construe communication or
coordination. NERC added that the Blackout Report \13\ correctly
identifies communication and coordination issues as reliability issues
and that communication and coordination are addressed in the
Communications (COM) Reliability Standards.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Response of the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation to Request for Additional Information Regarding
Interpretation to Reliability Standard TOP-001-1, Requirement R8
(NERC Response).
    \13\ Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United
States and Canada (Blackout Report).
    \14\ NERC Response at 4-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Determination

    10. We propose to approve NERC's interpretation of Reliability
Standard TOP-001-1, Requirement R8. We believe that the ERO has
presented a reasonable interpretation consistent with the language of
the Reliability Standard. In addition, as discussed below, we note that
a balancing authority and transmission operator each have coordination
and communication functions that are necessary for maintaining real and
reactive power balance.

Discussion

    11. We propose to approve NERC's interpretation of TOP-001-1,
Requirement R8. As explained by NERC, the interpretation supports the
stated purpose of the Reliability Standard, i.e., ensuring that
reliability entities have clear decision-making authority and
capabilities to take appropriate actions or direct the actions of
others to return the transmission system to normal conditions during an
emergency.\15\ The interpretation also clarifies the responsibilities
of a balancing authority and transmission operator during a system
emergency. Further, the language is consistent with the language of the
requirement. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to approve the ERO's
interpretation of TOP-001-1, Requirement R8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. We agree, as discussed in the interpretation, that the
balancing authority is responsible for restoring real power balance
during a system emergency and the transmission operator is responsible
for restoring reactive power balance during a system emergency.
However, during a system emergency, communication and coordination
between the transmission operator and balancing authority can be
essential to restore real and reactive power balance. For example,
during an emergency, the balancing authority may rely on the real power
output of a generator to fulfill its responsibility, while the
transmission operator may expect the same generator unit to reduce real
power to generate greater reactive power output.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Blackout Report described such a scenario, explaining
that a generator unit tripped because the unit's protection system
detected the Var output, i.e., reactive power, exceeded the unit's
capability. Blackout Report at 27. The Blackout Report also
explained that no generator units were asked to reduce their real
power output to produce more reactive power. Id. at 47.

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

    13. NERC acknowledges the need for such communication and
coordination. NERC maintains that this coordination and communication
is required through two currently-effective Communication (COM)
Reliability Standards: (1) COM-001-1.1-Telecommunications and (2) COM-
002-2--Communication and Coordination.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ NERC Response at 6-7. NERC also identifies several ongoing
Reliability Standards projects that are intended to strengthen the
requirements around communication and coordination between
functional entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. We agree with NERC that the currently effective COM Reliability
Standards provide for such communication and coordination. For example,
Reliability Standard COM-002-2, Requirement R1 provides that
transmission operators, balancing authorities and generator operators
must have communication links with one another and must be staffed to
address a real-time emergency. Reliability Standard EOP-001-0,
Requirements R3, R4.3 and R7 also contain provisions relevant to such
communication and coordination in emergencies. These provisions require
balancing authorities and transmission operators to develop plans to
mitigate operating emergencies including coordination among adjacent
transmission operators and balancing authorities.
    15. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we propose to
approve NERC's proposed interpretation of TOP-001-1, Requirement R8.

III. Information Collection Statement

    16. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements
(collections of information) imposed by an agency.\18\ The information
contained here is also subject to review under section 3507(d) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
    \19\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. As stated above, the Commission approved, in Order No. 693,
Reliability Standard TOP-001-1 that is the subject of the current
rulemaking. This proposed rulemaking proposes to approve the
interpretation of the previously approved Reliability Standard, which
was developed by NERC as the ERO. The proposed interpretation, as
clarified, relates to an existing Reliability Standard, and the
Commission does not expect it to affect entities' current reporting
burden.\20\ Accordingly, we will submit this proposed rule to OMB for
informational purposes only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1901-
1907.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. For the purposes of reviewing this interpretation, the
Commission seeks information concerning whether the interpretation will
affect respondents' burden or cost.
    Title: Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System.
    Action: FERC-725A.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0244.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit institutions; not-for-
profit institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: On Occasion.
    19. Necessity of the Information: This proposed rule would approve
the proposed interpretation of Reliability Standard, TOP-001-1,
Requirement R8. The proposed rule would find the interpretation just,
reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the
public interest. The TOP-001-1 Reliability Standard helps ensure the
reliable operation of the North American Bulk-Power System by ensuring
``reliability entities have clear decision-making authority and
capabilities to take appropriate actions or direct the actions of
others to return the transmission system to normal conditions during an
emergency.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The purpose of Standard TOP-001-1, according to the NERC
Web site at http://www.nerc.com/files/TOP-001-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention:
Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].
    For submitting comments concerning the collection of information
and the associated burden estimate, please submit your comments to FERC
and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer
for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>]. Due to security concerns, comments should be sent
electronically to the following e-mail address at OMB: oira
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please refer to OMB Control No. 1902-0244, and
the docket number of this proposed rule in your submission.

IV. Environmental Analysis

    21. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\22\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying,
corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the
effect of the regulations being amended.\23\ The actions proposed
herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. &
Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \23\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    22. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \24\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that
accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize
any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size
Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.\25\
The SBA has established a size standard for electric utilities, stating
that a firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily
engaged in the transmission, generation and/or distribution of electric
energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding twelve
months did not exceed four million megawatt hours.\26\ The RFA is not
implicated by this proposed rule because the interpretations discussed
herein will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \25\ 13 CFR 121.101.
    \26\ 13 CFR 121.201, Section 22, Utilities, & n.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. The Commission approved Reliability Standard TOP-001-1 in 2007
in Order No. 693. The proposed rulemaking in the immediate docket
addresses an interpretation of Requirement R8 of previously-approved
TOP-001-1. The proposed interpretation clarifies current compliance
obligations of balancing authorities and transmission operators and
therefore, does not create an additional regulatory impact on small
entities.

VI. Comment Procedures

    24. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this

notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative
proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due 60 days
from publication in the Federal Register. Comments must refer to Docket
No. RM10-29-000, and must include the commenter's name, the
organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their
comments.
    25. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
    26. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    27. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

VII. Document Availability

    28. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426.
    29. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    30. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-
6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-10010 Filed 4-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 110 (Monday, June 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 35159]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12129]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Release of Land Affecting Federal Grant Assurance
Obligations at Salinas Municipal Airport, Salinas, Monterey County,
California

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport land.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a
proposal and invites public comment to change a portion of the airport
from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use at Salinas Municipal
Airport (SNS), Salinas, Monterey County, California. The proposal
consists of one parcel containing 13.25 acres of airport land, located
outside of the airfield, south of Airport Boulevard, between Mercer Way
and Skyway Boulevard, and north of Mortensen Avenue.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 8, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the request may be mailed or delivered to the
FAA at the following address: Ms. Laurie J. Suttmeier, Manager, San
Francisco Airports District Office, Federal Aviation Administration,
1000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 220, Brisbane, California, 94005-1835. In
addition, one copy of the comment submitted to the FAA must be mailed
or delivered to Mr. Brett J. Godown, Airport Manager, 30 Mortensen
Avenue, Salinas, California 93905.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The land was originally acquired from the
federal government as surplus land, via quitclaim deed issued by the
War Assets Administration on February 4, 1949. The land will be leased
for non-aeronautical revenue generation. Such use of the land
represents a compatible land use that will not interfere with the
airport or its operation, thereby protecting the interests of civil
aviation. The airport will be compensated for the fair market value of
the use of the land.
    In accordance with the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and
Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), Public Law 106-181 (Apr. 5,
2000; 114 Stat. 75), this notice must be published in the Federal
Register 30 days before the DOT Secretary may waive any condition
imposed on a federally obligated airport by surplus property conveyance
deeds or grant agreements.

    Issued in El Segundo, California, on May 27, 2020.
Brian Q. Armstrong,
Manager, Safety and Standards Branch, Airports Division, Western-
Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2020-12129 Filed 6-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


argued that the emissions estimates from the 104 surveyed facilities are
not representative and are significantly lower than BAQC’s data, or
the population densities around the 104 surveyed facilities are
significantly lower than for the City of Houston SOCMI sites subject to
the HON regulation, or both. The commenters (0125, 0128) stated that the
assertion that no populations around SOCMI sources subject to the HON
regulations are exposed to cancer risk levels above 10 in one million is
wrong and should not be used as the basis for concluding that the
current level of controls are sufficient.  Two commenters (0125, 0128)
were concerned that the USEPA has relied on modeled emissions estimates
to evaluate the risk given that the Texas Air Quality Study of 2000
(TexAQS 2000) showed that emissions estimates from various stationary
volatile organic compounds (VOC) sources are underestimated by as much
as an order of magnitude.  The commenters (0125, 128) added that
assuming the same level of error in the SOCMI emissions estimates used
by EPA to estimate residual risk, EPA’s estimated cancer risk levels
likely under represent the cancer risk from SOCMI chemical manufacturing
process units (CMPUs) by as much as an order of magnitude.

Response:  EPA acknowledges that the data used in the assessment were
not obtained from a truly random survey.  Instead, the data were
obtained from all responses to the industry questionnaire, and include
site-specific data on emissions sources, locations, and release
parameters.  Although it cannot simply be assumed that the data are
representative of the entire source category, the data do represent a
significant fraction of the category (approximately 44 percent), and
include sources with high and low emissions, sources that are
geographically proportional to the entire source category, and sources
that emit nearly all organic HAP thought to be emitted from the
category.  EPA agrees with one of the commenters that a significant
number of the facilities in the assessment are in Texas and Louisiana,
but this is evidence of disproportionate data as the ratio of the number
of these facilities to the total number of facilities in these states is
approximately 0.44, which is the same as for the entire nation.

Clearly, because EPA did not collect emissions data from the remaining
56 percent of the category, EPA cannot demonstrate that the emissions
data obtained through the industry questionnaire are proportional to the
emissions from the entire source category.  However, EPA does have
whole-facility emissions data for 226 facilities (the entire source
category is estimated at 238 facilities) in the National Emissions
Inventory (NEI), and EPA modeled these data to determine if there were
HON facilities posing greater risk than those included in the industry
data.  Although the NEI data were for the whole facility (and not just
the HON emission points), EPA used NEI data codes (MACT codes, Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) codes, and Source Classification Codes
(SCC)) to judge whether risks estimated using the NEI data could be
attributed to the HON source category.  EPA found that the highest risks
from using the NEI data were on the order of those estimated using the
industry data.  EPA concluded that the industry data were the most
detailed and comprehensive data available that were specific to the
source category, and that the data were appropriate for use in
conducting the residual risk assessment.

Regarding the 50-km modeling radius, this distance was selected because
the Gaussian dispersion model used is not designed to predict impacts
beyond 50 km.  In addition, the Benzene NESHAP indicates that EPA will
typically evaluate individual lifetime risk range and associated
incidence with "a 50 km exposure radius around facilities". See 54 FR
28045. Congress has instructed that EPA was to use the general Benzene
NESHAP framework in implementing CAA section 112(f).

EPA did use a factor of 2.3 to estimate population risk associated with
facilities not included in the industry data.  This factor is simply the
ratio of the total number of HON facilities to the number of facilities
in the industry data, and it does assume that, on average, the
population densities around the facilities not in the industry data are
similar to the densities around the facilities that were in the industry
data.  EPA estimates that there are 61.6 million people living within
the 50-kilometer modeling radius of the HON facilities included in the
industry data.  There are an estimated 82.8 million people living within
the 50-kilometer modeling radius of the 226 HON facilities modeled using
the NEI data.  This relatively small population difference indicates
that many of the facilities not in the industry data are located in the
same areas as the facilities included in the industry data.  Therefore,
the population densities around the facilities would be similar.

In the risk assessment, EPA showed that facilities with overlapping
modeling domains (facility "clusters") did not lead to significantly
higher estimated risks to the individual most exposed because such risks
are generally driven by the nearest facility.  However, facility
clusters did increase the numbers of individuals within certain cancer
risk ranges.  Although the total population around all facilities in the
source category is not a factor of 2.3 greater than the total population
around the facilities in the industry data, the additional facilities
would increase the risks to some of the same segments of the population,
resulting in higher risk to individuals in the population.

EPA believes that the commenter may have misread the proposed rule (or
its supporting documents) when stating that EPA estimated that there are
no populations around HON facilities exposed to cancer risk levels above
10-in-1 million.  EPA, in fact, estimated that 32 HON facilities have
individuals exposed to emissions estimated to result in lifetime cancer
risks exceeding 10-in-1 million.

EPA is aware that adjustments were made to VOC emissions inventories for
the Houston area after aircraft measurements indicated concentrations of
olefins (mostly propylene and ethylene) were several times higher than
could be accounted for by modeling of the inventoried emissions.
Because of the relatively short time period of the measured
concentrations, and the fact that the concentrations cannot be
attributed to specific sources, EPA contends that it is not appropriate
to adjust HAP emissions based on this information.

The commenter supplied information on one facility in the Houston area
that emits butadiene (an olefin), including data from three monitors
around the facility.  This facility is not included in the industry data
used in the primary risk assessment.  The highest annual concentration
of butadiene of the three monitors near the facility yields a cancer
risk estimate of approximately 100-in-1 million.  This value is in the
upper end of the range of cancer risk values estimated using the
industry data.  EPA did model this facility using NEI data, and the
cancer risk estimate is on the same order as that estimated from the
monitoring data.

7.0  STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

	Comment:  One commenter (0136) argued that EPA has not conducted an
adequate analysis of the environmental justice implications of the
proposed rule according to the requirements of Executive Order 12898.
Because the rule expressly considers cost to industry in making
decisions about how many people to protect and to what level, the
commenter (0136) contended the agency is specifically trading the health
of those closest to HON facilities for cost savings for HON owners and
operators. The commenter (0136) added that if EPA is disproportionately
trading-away the health of low-income and minority citizens, it must
specifically address this impact, and cannot avoid this obligation by
simply asserting that it lacks adequate information perform a meaningful
analysis and then offering an open-ended solicitation of comments.  The
commenter (0136) concluded that until EPA expressly and adequately
addresses Environmental Justice issues, and makes its evaluation
available for public review and comment, this rulemaking is inadequate
and cannot appropriately go forward.

Response:  The Agency has recently reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring
environmental justice for all people, regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income level.  To ensure environmental justice, we
assert that we shall integrate environmental justice considerations into
all of our programs and policies, and, to this end have identified eight
national environmental justice priorities. One of the priorities is to
reduce exposure to air toxics.  We are adopting no changes to the
current HON rule under CAA section 112(f) because the current level of
control called for by the existing MACT both reduces HAP emissions to
levels that present an acceptable level of risk and protects public
health with an ample margin of safety, no matter where that public
resides.  The finding regarding an "ample margin of safety" is based on
a consideration of the additional costs of further control (as
represented by Option 2) and the relatively small reductions in health
risks, including those risks faced by low-income and minority citizens,
that are achieved by that alternative.  The fact that low-income and
minority citizens may represent a larger percentage of the population
exposed to HON HAP emissions compared to their percentage within the
overall U.S. population does not in itself indicate that there is an
environmental justice concern.  Rather, our risk assessment shows that
the remaining current HON requirements already protect public health
with an ample margin of safety, and to the extent that the relevant
exposed public is comprised of  low-income and minority citizens our
risk assessment’s analysis and our conclusions are based on their real
exposure risks.  Therefore, we believe our analytical approach in this
rulemaking was undertaken in a manner that is consistent with the policy
of the Executive Order.

8.0  CLARIFICATIONS AND MINOR RULE CHANGES

Comment:  Several commenters (0131, 0135, 0138, 0143, 0144, 0151) argued
that EPA’s proposed clarifications and solicitation of comments on
current HON rule issues are significant, will result in additional costs
and burdens with no identified environmental benefit, in some cases are
inconsistent with current rule language and 12 years of HON
implementation, and must, if EPA wants to adopt them, proceed through a
formal rulemaking process versus incorporation in a preamble.

Response:  While we are making no changes to the control requirements of
the existing standards based on the residual risk and technology review,
we are publishing three technical amendments under CAA section 112(d)(2)
designed to clarify provisions of the existing rule and provide for
effective implementation.  At proposal, we solicited comments on a list
of rule clarifications.  After considering public comments, we have
decided not to adopt some of the proposed changes at this time.  We may
consider some of these proposed changes again in the future, in which
case we intend to provide an additional opportunity to comment on them.
However, we are finalizing one minor change on which we solicited
comments.  The change deals with clarification of the group status
change for wastewater.

Comment:  Several commenters (0129, 0131, 0138, 0140, 0148) argued that
exclusions are needed and did not see any reason for EPA to change the
current HON provisions dealing with boilers and fuel gas systems.  One
commenter (0129) stated that depending on process configurations,
individual boilers (or process heaters) or fuel gas systems may be used
as controls for storage tanks, transfer operations, wastewater emissions
or equipment leak emissions.  The commenter (0129) added that boilers
may be used for process vent control where the vent is not incorporated
in the boiler fuel gas system.   One commenter (0138) added that in some
cases, regulated streams are sent to a single boiler or process heater
or even a single burner. If the regulated stream is handled as primary
fuel to that combustion device or burner or as secondary fuel to a
combustion device that exceeds 44 Megawatt (MW) capacity, essentially
complete destruction of the organics in the stream will occur and the
boiler exclusions are justified. In other cases, regulated streams are
sent to "fuel gas systems" as defined in the rule.  The commenter (0138)
added that the exclusions are justified because destruction of organic
HAP is assured because gas from fuel gas systems is used as primary fuel
in combustion devices.

Additionally, the commenters (0129, 0138) stated that these exclusions
are present in a multitude of Part 60, 63 and 65 rules, so any change
would have much broader impacts then just the HON. The commenters (0129,
0138)  contended that such a precedent setting change should only be
made through notice and comment rulemaking that calls the broad,
regulated community’s attention to the precedent setting nature of the
proposal and not buried in a HON specific notice.  One commenter (0129)
added that the Agency must justify the need for these new requirements
and burdens under the provisions of the CAA, the Administrative
Procedure Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and other applicable laws
and executive orders.

Response:  After considering public comments, we have decided not to
adopt the proposed changes at this time.  We may consider these proposed
changes again in the future, in which case we intend to provide an
additional opportunity to comment on them.

Comment:  Two commenters (0148, 0151) supported EPA’s clarification
that subpart H of the HON requires that leaks found outside of the
regularly scheduled monitoring period must be repaired, recorded, and
reported as leaking components provided that EPA also clarifies the
equation for percent leaking pumps at 40 CFR 63.163(d)(4) which
currently refers to leaking pumps identified during monthly monitoring.
Additionally, one commenter (0151) stated that EPA may wish to consider
whether expanding the requirements of 40 CFR 63.169, which requires
prompt repair of certain leaking components, to include all leak
detection and repair components would not be the simpler approach.  The
commenter (0151)added that then there would be no need to change leak
rate, leak percentage, recordkeeping, reporting or other requirements

Two commenters (0131, 0138) contended that, regarding leaking components
found outside of regularly scheduled monitoring periods, the change
proposed on page 34440 of the preamble has major implications on leak
detection and repair (LDAR) programs, particularly the data handling
portions, and will cause confusion and change the interaction of the HON
with State and Federal VOC LDAR programs.  One commenter (0144)
contended that to require that leaks identified outside of scheduled
monitoring be recorded, as proposed, may create more or a continuous
monitoring program for some locations.  Therefore, leak rates should be
established by designated periodic monitoring only.  One commenter
(0138) stated that for leaking components found outside of regularly
scheduled monitoring periods, while any leakage from pumps found at any
time will be addressed and the leak corrected, the commenter did not
believe the HON requires such occurrences to be treated as "leaks" or
that HON recordkeeping and reporting requirements are triggered.
Additionally, the commenter (0138) did not see how this determination
has bearing on leaks from other component types, since it is based on
wording specific to pumps.

Additionally, the commenters (0131, 0138) argued that if the EPA were
desire to implement these changes, a formal rulemaking process must be
initiated and also noted that the EPA’s position is in direct conflict
with Subpart H’s language, which requires periodic monitoring and
provides a schedule for such monitoring.

Response:  After considering public comments, we have decided not to
adopt the proposed changes at this time.  We may consider these proposed
changes again in the future, in which case we intend to provide an
additional opportunity to comment on them.

Comment:  Two commenters (0138, 0140) opposed establishing a definition
for net heating value.  The commenters (0138, 0140) also contended that
because no definition was proposed, its not possible to comment on it.
One commenter (0138) stated that the proposal seems to misunderstand
"net heating value" and that it is unclear what issue the Agency is
trying to address, but the commenter (0138) believed this change would
negatively impact the environment.  The commenter (0138) assumed the
intent of this change is to cause some streams be treated as regulated
streams (e.g., process vents) rather than as fuels. In some cases,
sources will accept the burdens this imposes on the combustion device(s)
receiving the streams or on the handling of the streams as hazardous
waste. In other case, those burdens will be unacceptable and streams
will be routed to other, likely less environmentally beneficial
dispositions (e.g., sent to flares). Further, the commenter (0138)
stated that this will directionally reduce the amount of recovery and
beneficial use occurring in the industry. In this situation, the
environment is worse off and more energy is likely expended than in the
current situation, since there is no heat recovery associated with these
alternate dispositions. Furthermore, the commenter (0138) contended that
such a change would be in direct conflict with the pollution prevention
goals of the Agency and the Clean Air Act.  Additionally, the commenter
(0138) stated that changing stream fuels to regulated vents and changing
equipment from being recovery devices to being control or treatment
devices, incurs large burdens and requires compliance time and that
there are many issues that need to be addressed by the Agency if it
proposes this change.

Another commenter (0148) agreed with EPA’s proposal to define "net
positive heating value" to incorporate the concept that, for fuel value,
the stream must provide useful energy by using less energy to combust
and produce a stable flame than would be derived from it.

Response:  After considering public comments, we have decided not to
adopt the proposed changes at this time.  We may consider these proposed
changes again in the future, in which case we intend to provide an
additional opportunity to comment on them.

Comment:  One commenter (0148) supported EPA’s proposal to change the
frequency of the pressure testing to quarterly and supplement the
pressure tests with a statistical sample of Method 21 results.

Another commenter (0138, 0144) argued the Agency should provide their
data on this issue for comment and that this compliance option should be
made consistent with other rules.  Additionally, one commenter (0138)
contended that regulatory language is needed to allow comment on the
burdens imposed by this change. Another commenter (0144) added that in
some cases, this may overlap with DOT requirements.

Other commenters (0126, 0140) suggested EPA provide language regarding
the identification of leaks via pressure testing and recommended a
separate rulemaking be investigated to review pressure testing protocols
and establish consistency for the industry.  One commenter (0140) added
that the subject should not be included in the HON because it is not a
residual risk concern.  The commenter (0140) also stated that revising
the batch pressure testing option would have broader implications than
for just the HON

Another commenter (0141) disagreed that pressure testing is less
efficient or less costly than method 21 testing, and provided examples
of the benefits of pressure testing.  The commenter (0141) also
requested EPA clarifying what equipment would be required to use Method
21.

Response:  After considering public comments, we have decided not to
adopt the proposed changes at this time.  We may consider these proposed
changes again in the future, in which case we intend to provide an
additional opportunity to comment on them.

Comment:  Several commenters (0131, 0138, 0140, 0144) opposed the
proposed procedures for redetermination of primary product.  The
commenters (0131, 0138, 0140) contended that if a process at a major
source makes organic chemical products and is under NAICS 325 and it is
not subject to the HON or another NESHAP, it is subject to the
Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (MON); therefore, changes to the
determination would force flexible operations to "flip flops" between
regulations as production demands.  The commenters (0131, 0138, 0140,
0144) added that such changes must be made through a formal rulemaking.
 One commenter (0138) added that regardless of whether a redetermination
requirement is imposed, EPA should exclude processes covered by other
part 63 regulations in the HON.  Further, commenters (0138, 0140)
stated that annual redetermination of primary product is at odds with
the five year window used in the HON and requiring sources to change
which NESHAP applies is a major, precedent setting rulemaking and must
be reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order
18322 as such.

Response:  After considering public comments, we have decided not to
adopt the proposed changes at this time.  We may consider these proposed
changes again in the future, in which case we intend to provide an
additional opportunity to comment on them.

Comment:  One commenter (0141) disagreed with EPA "clarifying" that
shared recovery devices with other CMPUs makes the device a control unit
with the residuals subject to disposal.  The commenter (0141) added that
the HON litigation settlement transferred the concept of determining
Group status for control from the process vents to wastewater and the
concept of "discard" from RCRA regulations.  The commenter (0141) stated
that unlike RCRA regulations that specifically require on site use, the
HON does not because that was never a requirement in the settlement
discussions or in the revised litigation regulatory text.  The commenter
(0141) stated that it is disingenuous of EPA to now "re-interpret" what
is clearly nonexistent in the regulatory text.  The commenter (0141)
added that if the recovered material meets the definition of "recovery"
as promulgated in 40 CFR 63.111, then the recovery material cannot be a
residual since it was extracted from process fluids upstream of the
Point of Determination (POD).

Response:  After considering public comments, we have decided not to
adopt the proposed changes at this time.  We may consider these proposed
changes again in the future, in which case we intend to provide an
additional opportunity to comment on them.

Comment:  Several commenters (0129, 0131, 0138, 0140) contended that EPA
cannot change the status of shared wastewater recovery devices through a
clarification that conflicts with the regulation.  The commenters (0129,
0131, 0138, 0140, 0144) believed EPA’s suggested change is in direct
conflict with the HON language and thus these "clarifications" require
rule amendment.  One commenter (0138) added that such changes would
incur significant burden on sources and permitting authorities and need
to be proposed in a separate rulemaking.  Two commenter (0131, 0138)
added that since no such procedures [regarding assigning a piece of
equipment to a particular CMPU] are provided for wastewater recovery
devices, vent recovery devices, control devices, or closed vent systems
[where procedures are provided for storage tanks, loading arms and
distillation units], these systems can be shared between CMPUs and with
non-HON processes.  The commenter (0131) also contended that recovery of
organics from wastewater is a very expensive operation and shared
collection and recovery systems are always the most cost effective
solution where the organics are compatible.  One commenter (0144)
contended that shared recovery devices should not be designated as
wastewater treatment devices.  The commenter (0144) added that, by
definition, shared recovery devices are not waste management units.
Other commenters (0140) listed additional reasons they opposed the
clarification.

Response:  After considering public comments, we have decided not to
adopt the proposed changes at this time.  We may consider these proposed
changes again in the future, in which case we intend to provide an
additional opportunity to comment on them.

Comment:  One commenter (0138) argued that, regarding liquid streams
from control devices, since the HON does include control devices in the
CMPU, this proposed "clarification" is unnecessary and would only
confuse regulators and the regulated.  The commenter (0138) believed
that there is no need for this clarification, because the Agency is
incorrect in saying that a control device is not specifically defined as
part of the CMPU. CMPU is defined in both §63.100 and §63.111 of the
HON.  Another commenter (0148) supported EPA’s clarification that
liquid streams routed to a recovery device receiving streams from
multiple CMPUs would be wastewater.

Response:  We are clarifying in the preamble that liquid streams
generated from control devices are wastewater.

Comment:  Several commenters (0129, 0138) argued that since there are no
standards in the HON that apply to non-continuous vents from continuous
operations, this clarification is presumably meant to require that such
streams be addressed in the start-up, shutdown and malfunction plan
(SSMP) required by §63.6(e)(3) (as referenced from the definition of
SSMP in §63.101 and indicated in Table 3 of subpart F).  The commenters
(0129, 0138) believed the only way the Agency can institute the change
suggested here is to amend the HON to override §63.6(e)(3)(i) and the
commenter saw no benefits to the environment by such an action.
Furthermore, the commenters (0129, 0138) stated that expanding the
coverage of SSMPs would be precedent setting for all part 63 standards
since virtually all require SSMPs and follow the HON model for content,
thus this change should be noticed and reviewed with that consideration
clearly identified.  One commenter (0138) argued that it is impossible
to tell from this brief discussion what the impacts of this proposal
will be without seeing exactly how the Agency would amend subpart H.
Additionally, the commenter (0138) stated that this will also provide
the Agency the opportunity to explain what benefits would be obtained,
how the overlap with other regulatory requirements would be resolved,
what compliance time will be provided and to obtain approval under the
various laws and executive orders applicable to increasing burdens and
amending requirements.

Response:  After considering public comments, we have decided not to
adopt the proposed changes at this time.  We may consider these proposed
changes again in the future, in which case we intend to provide an
additional opportunity to comment on them.

Comment:  One commenter  (0131) believed that to include language
similar to 40 CFR 63.115(e), which requires a redetermination of TRE of
process vents if process or operational changes occur, for wastewater’
is not needed, since a redetermination of wastewater group status is
already required under 40 CFR 63.100(l)(4)(B) and (m). Also, Title V
annual certification process reinforces an ongoing obligation related to
rule applicability.  One commenter (0138) believed that, regarding group
status changes for wastewater, §63.100(l)(4)(B) and (m) already cover
the situation EPA is proposing to address and thus no new language is
needed.  The commenter (0138) also contended that §63.115(e) and the
associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the HON should be
deleted , since it is redundant with §63.100(l) and (m).  Another
commenter (0148) agreed with the EPA proposal to include language
similar to 40 CFR 63.115(e), which requires a redetermination of TRE of
process vents if process or operations changes occur for wastewater.

Response:  The revised rule clarifies the requirement to re-determine
Group status for wastewater streams if process or operational changes
occur that could reasonably be expected to change the wastewater stream
from a Group 2 to a Group 1 stream.  Examples of such process changes
include, but are not limited to, changes in production capacity,
production rate, feedstock type, or catalyst type; or whenever there is
replacement, removal, or addition of recovery equipment. Although 40 CFR
63.100(m) of subpart F generally applies to Group 2 wastewater streams
becoming Group 1, this change clarifies requirements for re-determining
group status for wastewater by including provisions analogous to those
in 40 CFR 63.115(e) of subpart G, which requires re-determination of TRE
for process vents due to process or operational changes.

Comment:  Several commenters (0120, 0121, 0133, 0139, 0143, 0148)
supported development of gas imaging technology but expressed concern
that it would be able to identify leaks as well as Method 21, and
therefore, supported using gas imaging in conjunction with Method 21
instead of replacing it.  Other commenters (0129, 0131, 0138, 0140,
0151) supported allowing gas imaging as an alternative to Method 21, but
not mandating it, in Subpart H.  Two commenters (0126 and 0140)
expressed concern that gas imagers may detect non-HAPs and may not be
able to differentiate them from HAPs.  Two commenters (0140, 0151) also
expressed concern about recordkeeping requirements due to the amount of
electronic storage that images would occupy.

Response:  We thank the commenters for their support.  Since we have
decided to maintain the current level of control for the HON rule, these
comments are now moot and it is not necessary for us to provide a
substantive response.

Comment:  Several commenters (0129, 0131, 0138, 0149) contended that MEK
(2-butanone) should be removed from selected HON tables to clarify
applicability since MEK was recently delisted from the HAP list on
December 19, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. Reg. 75047).  The commenters (0129,
0131, 0138, 0149) added that EPA didn’t, at that time, remove MEK from
various applicability tables in individual MACT (Part 63) rules (e.g.
HON Subparts F and G, Organic Liquid Distribution (OLD) MACT Subpart
EEEE, Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (OLD) Subpart FFFF),
which has resulted in uncertainty in the regulated community on
applicability of these rules as they relate to certain emission sources
(e.g. wastewater) when MEK is the driver for further control.

Response:  EPA agrees, and MEK has been removed from the HON in the
final rule.

9.0  OTHER

9.1	Applicability

Comment:  One commenter (0126) contended that the current EPA policy of
once in, always in is not consistent with the management of other EPA
air programs, and requested the EPA state the legal basis for this
policy in the CAA.  The commenter believed facilities that make
modifications not required under the MACT standard that result in the
source no longer being considered a major source of HAP, should not be
subjected to the MACT standard. One commenter requested that at the HON
residual risk compliance date, any facilities at that time that are not
major sources of HAP not be subjected to the final HON residual risk
regulations.  The commenter also requested language that would allow
facilities that reduce PTE below the major source threshold levels after
the final residual risk compliance date to have the ability to petition
the EPA for removal of the applicability of the MACT standard.

Response:  The Agency’s "once in always in" policy is currently
undergoing evaluation as a general matter, and is beyond the scope of
this rulemaking.  EPA expects to further address this issue in the
future, but is not prepared to modify its general policy as part of this
specific regulatory action which is limited to fulfilling our
obligations for the HON rule under sections 112(f) and 112(d)(6).
Moreover, since we have determined to not change the requirements of the
current rule, the comment regarding compliance with any revised
requirements is now moot, and it is not necessary for us to provide a
substantive response.

9.2	Compliance

Comment:  Two commenters (0123, 0128) argued the need for compliance
assurance monitoring requirements beyond a one-time performance test to
insure that residual risk has been addressed.  Furthermore, the
commenters (0123, 0128) stated that the practice of requiring only one
initial performance test to demonstrate compliance over the life of the
source is problematic, especially for sources that have significant
operational variability.

Response:  Since we have decided to maintain the current level of
control for the HON rule, this comment is now moot and it is not
necessary for us to provide a substantive response.

Comment:  One commenter (0136) argued that EPA’s proposed compliance
schedule for Option 2 is unlawful and counter to the plain language of
section 112(f)(4), which states that sources have 90 days to comply with
residual risk standards (although individual sources may be granted
waivers of up to 2 years).  The commenter (0136) argued that the
compliance schedule provisions of section 112(i) apply broadly to
section 112 unless superseded by individual subsections. In this case,
the specific provisions of 112(f)(4) actually fit within the parameters
of the section 112(i) provision, simply creating a somewhat tighter
schedule for residual risk rules. The commenter (0136) contended that
this statutory construction was intended by Congress and was not the
result of an oversight; and EPA has not met the high burden of proof
necessary to override the specific words of Congress. The commenter
(0136) presented a number of arguments (not summarized here) to counter
the EPA claims that Congress mistakenly left the section 112(f)(4)
compliance provisions in place while adding new ones to the 1990 CAA.
The commenter (0136) specifically disagreed with EPA’s argument that
an inconsistency in the compliance dates for certain new and existing
sources indicates a Congressional mistake. The commenter (0136) pointed
out that EPA assumed that the only explanation for such a system is
mistake. But the commenter (0136) argues that the 90-day compliance
period under section 112(f)(4)) is not longer than three years; and
therefore  section 112(f)(4) is subsumed, not contradicted, by section
112(i)(1).  The different compliance time period, according to the
commenter, allows the very newest and already best-controlled sources a
window to make further changes; this is in no way absurd or irrational.

Two commenters (0129, 0138) supported EPA’s proposed provision of
adequate compliance time, should Option 2 be finalized and added that
one to three years is needed to come into compliance.  The commenters
(0129, 0138) stated that EPA has the authority under the CAA to provide
reasonable compliance time.  Further, the commenters (0129, 0138) stated
that EPA should provide a compliance extension for tanks which require
floating roof upgrades similar to the provisions in §63.119 of the
existing HON and other rules, which is until the next outage or up to 10
years for the installation of minor equipment upgrades that require a
tank outage.   One commenter (0140) contended that if Option 2 is
promulgated, then 3 years is needed to comply with proposed process vent
and tank provisions, and 1 year is needed to comply with the proposed
equipment leak provisions.  The commenter (0140) provided rationale
supporting their position.  One commenter (0143) stated that the
required compliance date for an existing source is consistent with the
Part 63 General Provisions found at 63.3(c)(2) [3-year after effective
date as EPA clarified in the preamble] and the required compliance date
for a new source that commences construction or reconstruction on or
after the effective date [usually the date of final rule] is consistent
with 63.3(b)(2) [upon start-up].  However, the commenter (0143) stated
EPA has not stipulated a compliance date for any new source that
commenced construction or reconstruction after the proposal date, but
before the effective date.

Response:  Since we have decided to maintain the current level of
control for the HON rule and have not adopted new compliance dates, this
comment is now moot and it is not necessary for us to provide a
substantive response.  However, we refer the commenters to our recent
final residual risk rule for drycleaning facilities, 71 Fed. Reg. 42724,
42729-30 (July 27, 2006) for further discussion of the agency’s
position on this issue.

Comment:  Two commenters (0138, 0142) stated that in the event that the
Agency promulgates Option 2, with or without a "low-risk" alternative,
emission points that are part of a previously approved emissions average
should be exempted from the revised Option 1 definitions for process
vents and storage vessels.  Applying the new definitions would change
some Group 2 emission points to Group 1, which would invalidate those
emission averages and result in significant additional unconsidered
costs.  The commenters contended that by disrupting an emission average
situation, sources would be forced to control much less cost effective
emissions (that’s why they used an emissions average) and those higher
costs, both absolute and on a dollar per ton basis, were not considered
in this rulemaking.

Response:  Since we have decided to maintain the current level of
control for the HON rule, this comment is now moot and it is not
necessary for us to provide a substantive response.

Comment:  One commenter (0138) stated that since other part 63 standards
reference the HON, the Agency should be clear that the amendments
adopted to protect public health and the environment (i.e., residual
risk review), if finalized, do not apply to those referencing subparts.

Response:  Since no changes in control requirements were adopted as a
result of the residual risk review, there is no reason to clarify the
relationship of the HON to other referencing subparts. All of the final
rule changes apply to any subpart that references the HON.  	Comment:
One commenter (0126) argued that for residual risk provisions, the EPA
should clarify the relationship between HON and MON for cases where a
process unit has changed products and becomes subject to an alternative
MACT standard.  The commenter (0126) contended that the unit should only
be subject to the residual risk provisions that apply under the
appropriate MACT standard.  Additionally the commenter (0126) requested
that the EPA clarify that existing sources that change MACT compliance
standards during any compliance period should be give the full three
year compliance timeframe to implement the newly applicable residual
risk standards.

Response:  Whenever the product outputs of a chemical processing unit
(CPU) changes, the owner/operator must assess whether the unit meets the
applicability requirements of the HON or the MON.  After the date of the
process change, the CPU would be subject to all provisions of the
applicable rule, including the MACT control requirements and any
provisions designed to protect public health and the environment.
Regarding compliance dates, both rules contain provisions for
determining compliance dates in cases where new equipment is added to a
CPU or existing equipment changes status from Group 2 to Group 1 as a
result of a process change.

9.3	Low Risk Alternative

Comment:  Several commenters (0120, 0136, 0143, 0145, 0148) opposed the
low risk compliance alternative.  Some commenters (0120, 0139, 0145,
0148) opposed it because it would place a very intensive resource demand
on state and local agencies to review risk assessments prepared by
sources trying to exempt themselves from the requirements and review of
these risk assessments will require expertise in risk assessment
methodology that many state and local agencies may not possess.  Several
commenters (0120, 0139, 0145) added that many state and local agencies
simply do not have the resources or expertise to accomplish those tasks.
 One commenter (0145) was concerned that the proposal does not address
the critical need for qualified public health risk assessors to evaluate
the hazard, exposure and risks associated with emissions from a HAP
source.  The commenter (0145) believed that qualified scientists skilled
in risk assessment methods are required to evaluate the scientific and
technical basis for using risk methods to exempts facilities from
federal regulations on a case-by-case basis.  The commenter (0145) added
that it is important that EPA consider the regulatory costs that are
associated with implementing a risk-based exemption program within the
current Title V permit program.  The commenter (0145) stated that these
costs will be substantial because the Title V permit programs are
currently focused exclusively on implementing control technology
standards.

One commenter (0136) contended that EPA’s low-risk exemption concept
is undefined and illegal.  The commenter (0136) stated that the preamble
does not provide sufficient detail of this approach to allow for
meaningful comment, so including an exemption in the final rule would
violate the requirements of section307(d) of the CAA. The commenter
(0136) stated that there is no legal basis for the concept of a
risk-based exemption under section 112(f)(2). The commenter (0136) also
argued that to allow certain sources to control emissions less than what
EPA determines is technologically feasible and cost-effective is
contrary to the urban toxics strategy under the CAA.  The commenter
(0136) added that small sources, which individually may pose little
risk, can cumulatively contribute significantly to the "toxic soup"
found in urban areas. The Act directs EPA to find emission reductions
even from these small, low-risk sources. The commenter (0136) charged
that the concept of exempting major sources from the need to achieve
feasible emission reductions is inconsistent with Congress’
recognition of the current toxics problem.  Lastly, the commenter stated
that EPA failed to address the legal authority for implementing the low
risk alternative and how it would be implemented in Title V operating
permits.

Several commenters (0126, 0129, 0131, 0134, 0135, 0138, 0140, 0142)
supported providing a low risk alternative if Option 2 was selected
because it would spare sources unnecessary cost and burden of compliance
for low risk sources.  One commenter (0142) added that option 2 should
not be promulgated until EPA has proposed language for and taken comment
on incorporation of a low risk demonstration process.  One commenter
(0138) supported the flexibility provided by a low risk applicability
approach for any CAA section 112(f) or section 112(d)(6) requirements
and believed it is appropriate to provide as much flexibility as
possible when doing conservative assessments for low risk sources, since
there is negligible health risk in play.  However, the commenter (0138)
believed that some aspects of the EPA description of the risk analysis
process, while possibly appropriate for compliance demonstrations, are
unreasonable when the analysis is being used to determine whether
further control requirements apply.  Two commenters (0138, 0140)
contended that the applicability criteria do not establish alternate
compliance options and should not be characterized as such,  the
emissions basis for the analysis should be maximum annual emissions, not
maximum hourly emissions under worst case conditions, and proposing that
a source must demonstrate no adverse environmental impact when EPA has
already concluded that it does not, as in the case of the HON, is
confusing and unnecessary and should not be included in those low risk
demonstration requirements.  One commenter (0131) contended that the low
risk alternative should be based on a site-specific determination
similar to applicability determinations for other rules (e.g. NSPS,
MACT).  Anything beyond this is inconsistent with the recognition that
many sources are low risk and don’t require additional regulation.
The commenter (0138) stated that under section 112(c)(9)(B), if no
source in the source category poses a cancer risk greater than one in
one million further regulation would not be required. The commenter
(0138) added that the goal of any CAA section 112(f) and section
112(d)(6) regulation is to get those sources that do not meet these
criteria to install controls that will reduce cancer risk to 1 in 1
million (and non-cancer HI to <1.0) or as close to that level as
reasonable considering cost and technology factors.  The commenter
(0138) also argued that EPA has already provided exclusions in the MACT
phase of the Air Toxics Program for low risk sources in several recent
rulemakings, demonstrating the Agency’s ability to do so. However, the
commenter (0138) stated these exclusions were developed as exclusions to
section 112(d)(2) technology-based rules and are constructed in ways
that impose significant burdens (e.g. by establishing low risk
subcategories or being established as compliance options) that would be
unnecessary when deciding which sources would be required to implement
further requirements under sections112(f)( and (d)(6). The commenter
(0138) contended that in a residual risk rulemaking the focus should be
on appropriate criteria for a source to use to determine whether its
post-MACT emissions are subject to further emission reductions.

Response:  Since we have decided to maintain the current level of
control for the HON rule, these comments are now moot and it is not
necessary for us to provide a substantive response.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  2005.  Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry – Residual Risk Assessment.  September
2005.

 PAGE  78