  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 	Additional Regional Haze Questions

	August 24, 2006

Note:   The following are questions EPA has received from various States
and Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) related to the submission of
regional haze SIPs under the program described by 40 CFR 51.308.  This
document provides guidance to the State air pollution control agencies
and the general public on meeting the regional haze SIP requirements.
These requirements can be found in sections 169A and 169B of the Clean
Air Act and 40 CFR 51.300-51.309.  This document does not substitute for
those provisions, nor is it a regulation itself.  Thus, it does not
impose binding, enforceable requirements on any party, nor does it
assure that EPA may approve all instances of its application, and thus
the guidance may not apply to a particular situation based upon the
circumstances.  The EPA and State decision makers retain the discretion
to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from this
guidance where appropriate.  Any decisions by EPA regarding a particular
SIP demonstration will only be made based on the statute and applicable
regulations, and will only be made following notice and opportunity for
public review and comment.  Therefore, interested parties are free to
raise questions and objections about the appropriateness of the
application of this guidance to a particular situation; EPA will, and
States should, consider whether or not the recommendations in this
guidance are appropriate in that situation.  This guidance is a living
document and may be revised periodically without public notice.  The EPA
welcomes public comments on this document at any time and will consider
those comments in any future revisions of this guidance document.

BART

Should a State promulgate a BART rule?  Should a State's BART rule
declare that VOC (and possibly ammonia) is/are not visibility impairing
pollutant(s), or can this declaration be part of the SIP narrative?

The regional haze rule (RHR) does not require that States promulgate
BART rules.  States are, however, required under 40 CFR 51.230 to show
they have the legal authority to carry out the SIP.  To the extent a
BART rule can aid in this requirement, then it should be considered.  A
State’s regional haze (RH) SIP submittal must include source-specific
BART emission limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to
BART.  See 40 CFR 51.308(e).   All regulatory requirements must be
approved into the SIP.

A State’s BART rule should not declare that VOCs or ammonia are not
visibility-impairing pollutants unless the State has evidence that VOCs
(or ammonia) from its BART-eligible sources are not significant
contributors to particle formation.  Such a declaration must be
substantiated in the SIP documentation.  This declaration may be placed
in the SIP narrative, which will be approved into the non-regulatory
portion of the SIP following an opportunity for public review and
comment on the State’s conclusion.  Furthermore, we recommend that
prior to SIP submittal that collaboration between and among States and
RPOs and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) occur such that the application of
exemptions or other principles used by a State/RPO is done with full
knowledge among the affected States/RPOs/FLMs.

2.	At sources that require BART but that have PTEs of less than 250 TPY
for VOCs and ammonia, must the BART proposal analyze controls for VOCs
and ammonia?

States must use their judgment to determine whether VOC or ammonia
emissions from individual sources in their State are likely to have an
impact on visibility in an area.  For a source such as the one you have
described, the State must consider whether its VOC or ammonia emissions
are likely to have an impact on visibility at a Class I area.  If so,
the BART proposal must analyze controls for such VOCs and/or ammonia.

3.	Should a State declare the exemption threshold value is 0.5 dv (or
some other value) in their rule?  EPA has simply set an upper bound.

The exemption threshold value selected by the State in determining
whether a BART-eligible source can reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment must  be specified in the SIP
documentation, as must the basis for the States’ selection of this
threshold.  The appropriateness of the threshold used by the State will
be subject to public review and comment, and States should consult with
the affected States/RPOs/FLMs in establishing this value.

4.	How should a State document in the SIP that BART controls will be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than 5 years after approval of the SIP?  Must BART controls be housed in
a Title V permit modification?

As specified in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(v), States are required to ensure
each source subject to BART install and operate BART as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no event later than 5 years after approval of the
implementation plan revision.  States should ensure that BART
requirements in a SIP are written in a way that clearly specifies the
individual emission unit(s) subject to BART regulation and the time by
which the emission unit(s) must begin to comply with the BART limit.
Because the BART requirements are ‘‘applicable’’ requirements of
the CAA, they must be included as title V permit conditions according to
the procedures established in 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71.  Under
70.7(f)(1)(i) Title V permits must be reopened and revised to include
new applicable requirements if the permit has three or more years of
life.  The reopening must be completed within 18 months after
promulgation of the new applicable requirement and the reopening must
follow the same procedures (public comment, etc) as apply to initial
permit issuance.  This may require that States provide commitments in
the SIPs to ensure that all applicable construction permits under Title
1, and the operating permits under Title V are revised in time.

The following elements, at a minimum, must be addressed to ensure the
BART controls are adopted into the State’s SIP.  These elements are
discussed in detail with other circumstances in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix
Y – Section V.

Name of source facility and the specific emission units and pollutants
being controlled.  (40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(i) & (ii)).

Specifics of the controls, control efficiency(ies), emissions reductions
expected

Enforceable emission limitations representing BART  (40 CFR
51.308(d)(3);(e))

Schedules for compliance with BART (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3);(e))

A requirement that each source subject to BART maintains the control
equipment and establish procedures to ensure such equipment is properly
operated and maintained.  (40 CFR 51.308(e)(v))

Reporting, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements adequate to
determine the source’s compliance (40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y – V).

Averaging times and reference methods to determine compliance  (40 CFR
Part 51, Appendix Y – V).

In the BART guidelines under step 4 of a BART determination is a
discussion of average cost effectiveness, yet we don't see anything
being averaged.  If one were to average all the individual annual cost
effectiveness over the remaining life of a plant, then we could see that
we were averaging something.  Can you explain this?

The term “average cost effectiveness” is a term that the Agency has
long used to describe one method of looking at the costs of control when
considering economic impacts.  See e.g. New Source Review Draft Manual
(Oct. 1990) at B. 36 describing the process for making best available
control technology determinations (BACT).  The Appendix at the end of
this document contains equations that can be used for determining
average cost effectiveness and should help you to understand how to
estimate the “average cost effectiveness” of various control
measures.

Is there a guideline on how to "annualize" costs (capital recovery
factors and levelizing inflation adjusted operation & maintenance
costs)?

Yes.  The EPA Control Cost Manual, referenced in the final BART rule
(see 70 FR 39104, 39163-39167 (July 6, 2005).  As noted in the
Guidelines,   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 the Control Cost Manual is updated
periodically.  This document is available at the following Web site:
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/products.html"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/products.html

In the BART guidelines under step 4 of a BART determination, "how do I
calculate baseline emissions?" it would help if a method were suggested
to depict anticipated annual emissions from the source.  Otherwise,
sources will do this in many different ways.  Should States suggest
facilities use a method similar to PSD - the highest 12 consecutive
months in the past 120 months (or whatever it is for PSD)?  If so,
should it be different for EGUs as it is for PSD?  Or, should a facility
take the highest 24-hour actual rate and multiply it times their average
utilization rate for the highest 2 of the past 5 years?  In either case,
if these cost effectiveness numbers are compared to the BACT/RACT/LAER
clearinghouse, it will make a difference.

The BART Guidelines state that the baseline emissions used for
estimating the average cost effectiveness of a control technology should
represent a realistic depiction of anticipated annual emissions for the
source.  The approach for making BACT determinations in the PSD program
is similar.  The methodology of looking at the annual average of the
highest 24 consecutive months in the past 120 months is one approach
that has been used in PSD when determining if there has been an
emissions increase as a result of a modification.   In some cases, this
approach could a reasonable method of estimating anticipated annual
emissions for a source.

How do you address an issue in which the installation of a BART control
causes an increase in another pollutant?

In some cases, the installation of controls to reduce emissions of a
pollutant can result in collateral increases in another pollutant.  For
example, the use of low NOx burners can result in an increase in CO
emissions.  If the increase in emissions of a collateral pollutant would
trigger other requirements under the Clean Air Act, such as New Source
Review, the State may include the costs, if any, of controlling
emissions of a collateral pollutant to meet these other requirements in
considering the economic impacts of a technology under consideration for
BART.

How will EPA address the cost effectiveness of control options?  If an
option reduces more than one pollutant, how is that addressed?

If an option reduces more than one visibility-impairing pollutant, it
could be justified in terms of the greater overall emission reduction.
The State will need to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of controlling
both pollutants in light of its evaluation of the other BART factors.
In general, the greater the overall emissions from multiple pollutants,
the more closely the State should consider controls on multiple
pollutants.

It is unclear in the responses to the BART Q and A the meaning of some
terms.  Some appear to be interchangeable.  It would be helpful to have
definitions for source, site, unit, and plant-wide (as they pertain to
BART).

General terms not defined in the BART Guidelines should be given the
same plain language meaning that they have under other Clean Air Act
programs.  Terms which are defined in this and other CAA regulations,
and in the statute, should retain those definitions; note however that
the “BART-eligible source” refers only to stationary sources built
within the BART time period (1962-77) comprised of the emissions units
meeting all three BART-eligibility criteria.  See 40 CFR 51.301 for
definitions of “stationary source” and “BART-eligible source.”
“Plantwide” means across the entire geographic entity, or across all
“BART-eligible” sources at the geographic entity (depending on the
context).

In the BART rule, are we to assume that de minimis levels for pollutants
are only based on BART-eligible sources, even when the term
“plant-wide” is used?

Generally yes.  The approach used by EPA in the BART Guidelines for
identifying a BART-eligible source begins with the identification of
those emissions units at a plant that fall within one or more BART
categories and that were put into operation within the 1962-1977
timeframe.  In 2004, after proposing that States be allowed to establish
de minimis levels for pollutants at BART-eligible sources,  EPA received
comments suggesting that de minimis levels be applied on a unit by unit
basis.  EPA rejected this suggestion in the final rule; the regulations
allow States to establish de minimis levels that apply to a
BART-eligible source.  In light of the comments received requesting that
the de minimis exemption be applied on a unit by unit basis and its
decision to reject this approach, EPA made the statement in the BART
Guidelines that “[these de minimis levels may only be applied on a
plant-wide basis.”  This statement was intended to clarify that the
State should consider the cumulative emissions from the units at a plant
that comprise the BART-eligible source in determining whether the
BART-eligible source meets the de minimis exemption requirements.

Note, however, that for category one (fossil fuel fired steam electric
plants >250 million Btu/hour), our interpretation of the source category
title is that the State should add all EGU emissions at a plant together
when determining plant capacity, in order to see if the plant falls
within category one.  Once you have determined that the plant does fall
within the category, the State would only consider those EGUs built
within the 1962-77 timeframe to actually be BART-eligible.

If a State determines that a recent BACT determination on an emission
unit is BART, then is a BART emission limit created that is the same as
the BACT limit, and is the Title V permit changed so that BART is also
listed as a basis for that emission limit?

Yes, if a State makes such a determination and includes it in its SIP,
then a BART emission limit is created that is the same as the BACT
limit.  The Title V permit must be amended to “specify and reference
the origin of and authority for” the emission limit.  40 CFR
70.6(a)(1)(ii).

Is EPA presuming a level of control for BART eligible sources in
guidance to consider CAIR plus BART plus other "reasonable" measures?

Guidance on the level of BART controls is not being developed.  BART can
only be determined on a case-by-case-basis and source-by-source-basis
using the modeling and  statutory factors listed in 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A).  Sources have expressed concern that reasonable
progress guidance might be interpreted to override BART guidance.  The
BART assessment is a separate requirement from the reasonable progress
test.  It may be that to meet reasonable progress, more controls are
needed from certain sources which may or may not include those sources
previously controlled under BART.  There is no way for EPA or the States
to determine the final strategy to comply with the reasonable progress
demonstration until the BART assessment is completed and the suite of
controls that are needed for RH is determined.   There could also be
additional controls that may be identified as needed to demonstrate
compliance for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.  This may or may not
affect the control identified under BART or CAIR.  The States have
flexibility in determining the type, pollutants and mix of sources that
could be used in developing a strategy for attaining a NAAQS per the
modeling guidance and implementation policy.

Can a source avoid BART by taking synthetic minor limits on the PTE of
visibility-impairing pollutants?  If so, by when do those limits need to
be in place?  What kind of mechanism must be in place to ensure those
limits are met?  For how long?

Yes, a source can opt to revise its Title I permit to provide for
synthetic minor limits so that it falls under the BART eligibility
threshold.  The limitations of a source’s potential to emit should be
in place prior to the State’s submission of its Regional Haze SIP to
EPA and a description of the State’s action should be included in the
SIP narrative.  To prevent circumvention of the BART requirements, it
may be necessary to include a permit term or SIP provision that provides
that changes at the BART-eligible source or in its permit that allow for
increases in emissions would subject the source to BART review.

If the unit is already controlled (e.g., under MACT or  BACT) and it is
the best, the latest control technology, does the source still need to
conduct a full blown BART analysis and control technology evaluation
including the installed control device?  Or, can the source just
describe the control device on their BART-eligible source unit and make
the case that it qualifies as BART, without having to evaluate other
technologies?

If the unit has “best, latest…”, then the source can just describe
the control device on their BART-eligible source unit and make the case
that it qualifies as BART, without having to evaluate other
technologies.  The streamlining of BART analyses in this situation is
addressed in Section IV.C of the BART Guidelines, “How does a BART
review relate to [MACT] Standards under CAA section 112, or to other
emission limitations required under the CAA?”

A source is built prior to 1962.  Between 1962 and 1977, it builds a new
emission unit that otherwise meets BART eligible requirements.  Is the
new unit subject to BART?

If a State is following the approach for identifying BART-eligible units
described in the BART Guidelines, the unit built between 1962 and 1977
is considered to be BART-eligible.

Although the rule in the Federal Register (FR), July 6, 2005 page 39107
and elsewhere indicates that the max 24 hour emissions should be used,
would EPA approve using double the actuals instead for CALPUFF BART
modeling?

 As noted in the final BART rule, emissions from a source can vary
widely on a day to day basis and the “24-hour actual emission rate
could be more than double the daily average. See 70 FR at 39129.  We
recommend that States use the highest 24-hour average actual emission
rate for the most recent three or five year period of meteorological
data in the CALPUFF model.  As EPA explained, “[t]he emission
estimates used in the models are intended to reflect steady-state
operating conditions during periods of high capacity utilization.”
Id.  Given the potential variability in actual emissions, use of actual
emissions (even double actual emissions) does not necessarily represent
this.

If a State participates fully in CAIR, and satisfies its BART obligation
for EGUs for NOx and SO2, must the PM BART eligibility analysis consider
whether all visibility impairing pollutants, summed across a facility,
exceed 250 tpy, or must only the PM emissions be considered?

If at the final step of identifying the emission units that constitute a
BART-eligible source, the State finds that a potential BART-eligible
source has the potential to emit 250 tpy of any visibility-impairing
pollutant, then the source is considered BART-eligible.  For example, if
a potential BART-eligible source has emissions of more than 250 tpy of
SO2 and meets the other applicable requirements, then it may be subject
to BART review for its emissions of PM.  However, if the source’s
emissions of PM10 are less than 15 typ (assuming the State has
established a de minimis level of 15 tpy), then the source’s PM10
emissions need not be addressed in a BART determination.

19.	An EGU has three boilers:  a) coal boiler (5500 mmbtu/hr); and b)
two auxilliary boilers (181.6 mmBtu/hr each).  The State has determined
the coal boiler to meet the first test for BART-eligibility.  Since the
two auxilliary boilers do not appear to fall under any of the 26 BART
categories, would they pass the first test for BART-eligibility because
they contribute to the "steam electric plant"?

As a general matter, all the emission units, including any auxiliary
boilers, at a fossil-fuel fired steam electric plant of more than 250
million BTU/hour heat input would be considered part of the same
stationary source.  Under the RH regulations, BART applies to certain
existing stationary sources; stationary sources, in turn, are defined to
include “all of the pollutant-emitting activities which belong to the
same industrial grouping, are located on one or more contiguous or
adjacent properties, and are under the control of the same person (or
persons under common control).”  50 CFR 51.301.  The regulations
further provide that “[p]ollutant-emitting activities must be
considered part of the same industrial grouping if they belong to the
same  Major Group (i.e. which have the same two-digit [SIC] code).”
For most plants on the BART list, there will be only one 2-digit SIC
code that applies to the entire plant.  As you have described the source
in your question, the auxilliary boilers would fall within the same
2-digit SIC code as the coal boiler; these units accordingly are part of
the same stationary source as the coal boiler.

Note, however, that if the auxiliary boilers are only used during
startup, then since we do not model startup conditions, those boilers
would not contribute any emissions to the modeled visibility impact from
the source; therefore those particular boilers may be exempted.

Reasonable Progress

1.	Is there a metric for determining if controls required for PM2.5, O3,
CAIR, or BART are "reasonable" without defining benefit of controls?

Unlike the technical demonstration for CAIR or BART, the reasonable
progress demonstration involves a test of a strategy.  The strategy
includes a suite of controls that has been identified through the
identification of pollutants and source categories of pollutants for
visibility impairment -  the possible controls for these pollutants (and
their precursors) and source categories - the application of four
statutory factors and how much progress is made with a potential
strategy with respect to the glide path.  Modeling occurs with a
strategy and is not a source-specific demonstration like the BART
assessment.

2.	How can States demonstrate benefits of controls from a single source
for RH without doing single source impact modeling, e.g. CALPUFF?

Reasonable progress is not required to be demonstrated on a
source-by-source basis.  It is demonstrated based on a control strategy
developed from a suite of controls that has been assessed with the four
statutory factors and the uniform rate of progress.

3.	What if a State is on the glidepath, but can still install cost
effective controls?  Is it obligated to install those controls?

From the preamble to the Regional Haze Rule (64 FR 35732), EPA
explained:

“If the State determines that the amount of progress identified
through the analysis is reasonable based upon the statutory factors, the
State should identify this amount of progress as its reasonable progress
goal for the first long-term strategy, unless it determines that
additional progress beyond this amount is also reasonable.  If the State
determines that additional progress is reasonable based on the statutory
factors, the State should adopt that amount of progress as its goal for
the first long-term strategy.

The statutory factors must be applied before determining whether given
emission reduction measures are reasonable.  For example, even if
emissions reductions from one source category are projected to be enough
to achieve the uniform rate of progress towards natural background in 60
years, States should not forego an analysis of what degradation is being
caused by pollutants from other source categories, or what improvements
could be made by controlling them.

4.	A.  What type of demonstration is acceptable to justify a reasonable
progress goal (RPG) that is less than the glidepath?  B.  What if
controls needed for other programs (e.g., PM2.5, ozone, CAIR) are
installed?

A.  If after applying the four statutory reasonable progress factors,
the rate of visibility improvement is still less than the uniform glide
path, States may adopt the calculated RPGs, provided that they explain
in the SIP how achieving the uniform glide path is not reasonable based
on the application of the factors.  States must demonstrate why the
slower rate is reasonable, and state the projected date for achieving
natural background under this alternative rate of progress.

B.  Existing controls that are installed as a result of other existing
CAA programs can contribute to a State’s ability to satisfy its RPG.
However, the statutory factors must be applied before determining
whether given emission reduction measures are reasonable.  In
particular, the State should adopt a rate of progress greater than the
glidepath if this is found to be reasonable according to the statutory
factors.  See in particular the directive in the preamble to the RHR at
64 FR 35732.

5.	Can a source commit to extra control of one visibility-impairing
pollutant in exchange for doing less to control a less significant
pollutant (inter-pollutant trading)?

The regulations require the States to adopt measures that will make
reasonable progress toward the national goal.  States have the
flexibility in developing these measures to focus on those pollutants
that have the most significant impact on visibility.  A State could
conclude that after application of the four statutory reasonable
progress factors, it is “reasonable” to control one pollutant to a
higher level than another pollutant.

In the context of BART, the RHR does not provide for inter-pollutant
trading where the source is installing controls based on the State’s
BART determination.  The regulations, however, do allow States to adopt
alternative measures in lieu of BART, so long as the alternative
measures provides for greater reasonable progress than would BART.
Inter-pollutant trading is not allowed in a trading program alternative
to BART, -- see 64 FR at 35743.

In addition, States may allow sources to “average” emissions across
any set of BART-eligible emission units within a fenceline, so long as
the emission reductions from each pollutant being controlled for BART
would be equal to those reductions that would be obtained by simply
controlling each of the BART-eligible units that constitute
BART-eligible source (70 FR 39172).

Coordination with RPOs, States, and FLMs

1.	What are EPA's expectations and the basis for consultation
requirements regarding formal consultative procedures?  What constitutes
effective FLM communication?  Can it be assumed that if the FLM attends
the RPO meetings and calls and doesn’t raise any concerns it has no
problems with a State’s SIP?

40 CFR 51.308(i) requires that States consult with FLMs before adopting
and submitting their RH SIPs.  These requirements are summarized as
follows:

States must provide the FLM an opportunity for consultation, in person
and at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on the SIP.
The State must also provide the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss
their: (i) assessment of impairment of visibility in any Class I area;
and, (ii) recommendations on the development of the RPG and on the
development and implementation of strategies to address visibility
impairment.  Further, the State must include in the SIP a description of
how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs.  Lastly, the SIP
must provide procedures for continuing consultation between the State
and FLMs on the implementation of 51.308, including development and
review of SIP revisions and 5-year progress reports, and on the
implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute to
impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

This is a formal consultative process.  The basis for requiring written
consultation procedures is 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4).  To satisfy this
requirement, States should contact the FLMs to ensure their input to the
RH SIP process is solicited and documented.  While effective FLM
consultation relies on both parties (States and FLMs) communicating
early and often, the State is only required to meet the provisions of 40
CFR 51.308(i) and is not responsible if a FLM chooses not to participate
in the either the RPO activities or the SIP development and review
process.  In such cases, the State should document its outreach efforts
to the FLM.

Is there a protocol for resolving disputes between States and RPOs
regarding technical differences between upwind and downwind States on
EI, modeling, natural background, apportionment, controls, etc.?  How
will EPA address States/RPOs adopting different IMPROVE algorithms (old
vs. new) to look at the same Class I area?

EPA is developing a State and Federal Protocol which will describe the
goals and objectives, consultation requirements, principles of
collaboration, and process for collaboration for the RH process.  While
conceptual in nature, this document will be designed to form the basis
for a common understanding, approach, process and expectations for
consultation and consistency in developing the 308 Regional Haze SIPs.
EPA is encouraging the early identification of any potential disputes.
This will allow all parties ample opportunity to address and document
any disagreements.

We understand that EPA is requiring each State with a Class I area to
submit a SIP that addresses its obligations relative to that Class I
area including establishment of a uniform rate of progress, imposition
of requirements to install controls on sources in that State that are
considered reasonable, documentation of its collaborative efforts with
other States impacting that Class I area, and also documentation of
interactions with surrounding States regarding that State’s
contributions to Class I areas in other States.  The question is,
“When is a State no longer obligated to consult with another State?”

States are required under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), to collaborate and
develop coordinated emission management strategies to address RH
visibility impairment not only for Class I areas within their own
borders, but also for each Class I areas located outside their borders
which may be affected by their emissions.  The obligation for States to
consult with each other ultimately remains in place for the period of
time covered by 40 CFR 51.308.  In practice, States will satisfy this
obligation mainly during the preparation of the RH SIPs for the first
planning period (2018), due by 12/17/07, and in the preparation of the
ten-year periodic revisions, and the five-year periodic reports
described in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and (g), respectively.

4.	A.  Does a State have obligations under the RHR for reasonable
progress to initiate discussions with another State whose sources impact
one of its Class I areas if the projected interim visibility improvement
in 2018 falls directly on the uniform rate of progress line for that
area?  Or can the State focus on defining reasonable progress for its
sources without engaging other States with contributing sources in
discussions?

B. Conversely, do States have obligations under the RHR to evaluate
whether their sources are contributing to Class I areas in surrounding
States even though the Class I areas surrounding it are achieving the
uniform rate of progress?

A.  Yes, a State must consult with States having sources reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I
area to develop their RPGs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv)
regardless of the uniform rate of progress for an area.

B.  Yes, States must evaluate whether their sources are contributing to
Class I areas in surrounding States even though the Class I areas
surrounding it are achieving the uniform rate of progress as noted in
answer 4.A.  Note also that 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) specifically requires
that States with emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute
to visibility impairment in another State’s Class I area consult with
that State to develop coordinated emission management strategies.

5.	For Class I areas that span two or more States, is there a
requirement for establishing a “lead” State?

There is no requirement in the RH regulations nor in guidance documents
to identify a “lead” State for shared Class I areas.  However,
states may choose to establish a “lead” state if it facilitates
their collaboration and consultation.   The RH rule relies on States
collaborating and using the consultation process (RPOs) to address
shared Class I areas.  Also, we assume the technical work that is used
as the basis would be the same for all SIPs.  One may also want to take
a look at where the IMPROVE monitor is located that "represents" the
Class I area in question, as that location may also help define the
"lead" State.  Another option is the State with the largest portion of
the Class I area in their State to be the “lead” State.  These are
ideas that could be used, but it is up to the States to work this out as
part of  the collaboration and consultation process.  We view shared
Class I areas similar to interstate NAAQS nonattainment areas.  The
States involved would collaborate to set one RPG for the area, and work
together to define a consistent, coordinated approach to develop the
long-term strategy for the area.  As with interstate NAAQS nonattainment
areas, each State has lead responsibility for developing, adopting and
submitting its own SIP revisions affecting their portion of the Class I
area.

6.	What if one State with the Class I area sets an RP goal that requires
an upwind State to make reductions that it won't make?

If a State with a Class I area determines that a contributing State is
not doing what is reasonable to meet the RPG set for the area, and has
attempted to resolve this issue, the State with the Class I area should
notify EPA and document this issue in its initial RH SIP.   For all
revisions to the initial RH SIP revision, 40 CFR 51.308(h)(2) requires
that the State with the Class I area provide notification to EPA and to
the other States which participated in the regional planning process.
This subsection further requires the State with the Class I area to
collaborate with those States in the regional planning process to
develop additional strategies.   It is EPA’s expectation that issues
of communication/collaboration problems such as this be brought to our
attention as early in the process as possible.

7.	If State A is at or below the glide path for an area, and a
neighboring State (State B) impacting State A's Class I area does not do
all it can to meet that area's RPGs, what happens?  Is State A
responsible to file a 126 petition or other action?  Could State A's
Regional Haze SIP be disapproved because of State B?  Are the answers to
these questions any different if State A's RPG is above the glide path?
In summary, if consultation does not work what happens and who is
responsible?

State A is responsible for establishing RPGs for its Class I areas based
on its consideration of the factors set forth in the statute and
implementing regulations, in consultation with State B and other States
that may be contributing to impairment in the area.  See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1).  Each State, including State B, is required to submit a
SIP with a long-term strategy that includes measures as necessary to
achieve the RPGs established for the Class I areas.  Where States have
participated in a regional planning process, the State must ensure that
its SIP includes all measures needed to achieve its share of emissions
reductions agreed upon through that process.  If there is a disagreement
among States as to what constitutes reasonable progress, the question of
whether State A’s or State B’s RH SIP could be disapproved will
depend on the specific of the situation.  Each State is also responsible
for documenting its good faith attempt to consult with State B, as
outlined in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).  EPA will take this information
into account in determining whether the State’s goal for visibility
improvement provides for reasonable progress towards natural visibility
conditions.  States are under no obligation to file petitions under
Section 126 of the CAA to satisfy the reasonable progress requirement
under the RH program.

8.	What is necessary in a SIP/template to demonstrate “continuing
consultation” under 51.308(i)(4)?

Most States are currently consulting with other States and with the FLMs
by participating in an RPO.  EPA anticipates that most States will
address their future FLM consultation requirements by continuing to
participate in an RPO that is engaged in an ongoing assessment of
visibility issues.  If a State demonstrates that it has met current
consultation requirements through participation in an RPO that is
engaging in the necessary consultations, and if the State intends to
satisfy future consultation requirements (for periodic comprehensive SIP
revisions  or for other issues that arise) by continued participation in
their RPO, then such a State need only commit to such participation.

For a State that has not fully engaged in the RPO process, the State
must provide a description of the process by which it intends to consult
with the FLMs in preparing future submittals and addressing issues that
arise.  Similarly, if a State has participated in an RPO but intends to
discontinue this participation, the State must provide extensive
description of the alternative means by which the State will engage in
the required consultations.

9.	To what extent does EPA expect RPOs to motivate States to communicate
directly with and engage the FLMs, particularly for Class I areas where
those FLMs have not been participating in the RPO's work?

EPA expects that the RPOs will serve as the coordinating entities to
facilitate State-to-State and State-FLM consultation.  To that end,  EPA
recommends that RPOs individually set up a formal process to encourage
State-to-State and State-FLM consultation to take place, perhaps in the
form of a coordinating workgroup.  Through managing this process,
RPO’s can help identify areas where more FLM participation may be
needed.  However, RPO’s are not responsible if a FLM opts not to
participate in these consultation opportunities.  Ultimately,  it is the
State’s responsibility to ensure the FLM consultation requirements
housed in 40 CFR 51.308(i) are satisfied.

10.	What are EPA's expectations of an RPO for written consultation
procedures with the other RPOs/States outside its jurisdiction?  Given
limited funds and much technical and policy work needed, it is suggested
this be made as simple and straightforward as possible.

EPA expects that RPOs will serve as the facilitating entities for
State-to-State resolution of issues relating to State apportionment of
visibility impairment at Class I areas.  RPOs should also assist States
in the resolution of disputes over the levels of control required by
upwind States that contribute to visibility impairment  of downwind
States’ Class I areas.  This process should begin by each RPO
identifying Class I areas for which their member States individually
cause or contribute to visibility impairment.  Following this, the RPOs
should meet to broker consensus between the States on the technical
approaches to these issues.

There is no requirement for an RPO to establish written consultation
procedures with the other RPOs/States outside its jurisdiction.  EPA
expects RPOs to facilitate and/or  establish procedures in any format
(informal or formal) as needed that works best for the parties involved.

11.	Does section 169A(c)(3) of the CAA require a State to obtain FLM
concurrence with a State’s proposal to exempt sources from being
subject to BART in its Regional Haze SIP submitted to EPA?

No.  The CAA requires States to make BART determinations for
BART-eligible sources  that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any impairment of visibility in a Class I area.  In the
BART Guidelines, we provides States with an approach for exempting
potential BART sources from BART by demonstrating that a source does not
meet this threshold.  In contrast, under section 169A(c)(1) of the CAA,
the Administrator has the authority to exempt most sources from BART if
he determines that the source is not reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to significant impairment of visibility.  Section 169A(c)(2)
contains a similar provision for certain powerplants.  The exemptions
under section 169A(c), however, are effective only on concurrence by the
FLM.  In sum, while States must consult with FLMs as part of the SIP
process, they are not required to obtain FLM concurrence with their
determination that a BART-eligible source does not cause or contribute
to any impairment.

Miscellaneous

1.	On December 20, 2005, the IMPROVE Steering Committee approved a new
algorithm for calculating current and natural background visibility.  If
states use the new equation in BART and reasonable progress analyses,
will EPA accept it?

Yes, either the new IMPROVE extinction equation as recommended in 2005
by the IMPROVE Steering Committee or the original equation recommended
by EPA in the "Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
Under the Regional Haze Rule" (September 2003, EOA-454/B-03-005) may be
used to develop Regional Haze SIPs.  Regardless of which algorithm is
used for a Class I area, that methodology should be applied in a
consistent manner.  Consistency should be maintained across Regional
Haze applications (i.e., BART and Reasonable Progress), across time
(e.g., baseline and future calculation for natural conditions), and
among the stakeholders involved who need to be consulted on the
development of a LTS for a Class I Area (i.e., FLMs, states, industry).
Specifically, we recommend that the same version of the IMPROVE equation
be used by States/sources which are impacting the same Class I area to
calculate visibility conditions for that area.

The current CALPUFF modeling system uses an approach that is similar to
the original IMPROVE equation. Therefore, a method to apply the new
equation with this model for a BART assessment is needed.  Consultation
with the EPA Regional Office and FLMs on proposals to use the new
IMPROVE equation with CALPUFF for a BART assessment is recommended prior
to its use in the modeling.

2.	Instead of a single value, can the RPG be satisfied using a natural
conditions range that captures the variability in year-year emissions of
natural events?

The 1999 RHR states that in comparing “current conditions” against
“natural conditions,” natural conditions means “[t]he level of
visibility (in deciviews) for the 20 percent most-impaired days, and for
the 20 percent least-impaired days, that would exist if there were no
manmade impairment.” 64 FR at 35730.  EPA issued a guidance document
concerning this entitled, “Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility
Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule.”  Under this guidance, a
single value for natural visibility for each class I area is calculated
for each of the 20 percent most-impaired days and the 20 percent
least-impaired days.  This guidance document describes “default” and
“refined” approaches for estimating natural conditions. The EPA
methodology that allows for the 20% best days and 20% worst days to
calculate natural and background levels is designed to avoid a single
value (i.e., the single best day or the single worst day).  The single
value that represents the 20% best days is considered representative of
the range. Consequently, it would be redundant and unnecessary to
further consider ranges of visibility values in determining natural and
background levels.

3.	What obligation does a downwind State have if it conducts modeling
based on an upwind State’s emission inventory, and the upwind States
subsequently changes its inventory?  What is EPA’s expectation here?

EPA expects that States will continue to work together in addressing the
problem of RH, both inside and outside the RPO context and that States
will share  pertinent aspects of their SIP planning with other States,
as appropriate.  Upwind States should use their best efforts to provide
potentially relevant information, such as changes in emissions
inventories, to downwind States in timely fashion.   We are relying on
the RPOs, in large part, to ensure this coordination takes place.

The Regional Haze Rule does not establish a deadline by which States
should finalize their emission inventories for purposes of SIP planning.
 EPA recognizes that addressing visibility impairment is an iterative
effort and that States will not always be capable of incorporating the
most up-to-date information in their analyses for the SIPs due in 2007.
If there is a lack of coordination on this issue that affects the
integrity of a particular State’s SIP, EPA will examine it on a
case-by-case basis and take into account the specifics of the situation
in its review of the SIP.

4.	How does the CAIR substitute for BART?

States subject to and participating in the CAIR cap and trade program
for SO2 and NOx may treat the CAIR requirements for EGUs as a substitute
for the application of BART controls for these pollutants.  States do
not need to require BART-eligible EGUs subject to the CAIR to install,
maintain, and operate BART per 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4).

In addition, a State which is only subject to CAIR for NOx, but which
also chooses to participate in the CAIR trading program for both SO2 and
NOx, may consider BART to be satisfied for both SO2 and NOx from EGUs.
Because EPA modeled these States as controlling for both SO2 and NOx in
the CAIR NFR, the better than BART demonstration presented in that
action would be valid in that scenario.  Conversely, if such States
choose to participate only in the ozone season NOx trading program, the
updated projections presented in the BART rule (70 FR 39104) demonstrate
that BART would be satisfied for NOx, but such States would still need
to address BART for SO2 emissions from EGUs (70 FR 39143).

Also, EPA’s assessment that the CAIR cap and trade programs can
substitute for BART controls does not extend to cases where a State has
identified source-specific BART requirements as a result of a reasonable
attribution determination.  In such cases, the source-specific BART
requirements must be met at the source.

Finally, the CAIR does not address other potential visibility impairing
pollutants such as PM, VOCs, and ammonia.  Also, the determination that
the CAIR makes greater reasonable progress than BART for EGUs is not a
determination that the CAIR satisfies all reasonable progress
requirements in CAIR affected States.

5.	If a CAIR facility is found to be exempt from BART for SO2 and NOx,
and the State does exemption modeling on PM10 and concludes there is no
impact on a Class I area, can the State totally exempt the utility from
BART?

States subject to and participating in the CAIR cap and trade program
for SO2 and NOx are allowed to treat the CAIR requirements for EGUs as a
substitute for the application of BART controls per 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4).
 This does not mean EGUs are exempt for SO2 and NOx, only that CAIR
satisfies the BART requirement for those pollutants.

The remaining visibility pollutants to consider for determining
BART-eligible sources are PM, and, using judgment, VOCs, and ammonia.
For PM, the July 6, 2005, final BART rule at 70 FR 39160 notes PM10 may
be used an indicator for PM in this step of the determination and thus,
PM10 can be used for the exemption modeling.

6.	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 What is the relationship of CAIR to reasonable
progress?  Does CAIR satisfy reasonable progress requirements for EGUs
for NOx and SO2?

As discussed in the answer to the previous question,  participation in
the CAIR can substitute for a State’s BART obligation in certain
narrowly defined areas.  However, for the purpose of satisfying the RPG,
CAIR has no more applicability than does BART – it is a control that
can be part of a State’s RPG.  The preamble to the 2005 BART Rule
states that EPA’s determination that participation in the CAIR trading
program would provide for greater reasonable progress from EGUs than
would BART  “is not a determination that CAIR satisfies all reasonable
progress requirements in CAIR affected States.” (70 FR 39143).  In
other words, although EPA has determined that the CAIR trading program
would provide greater reasonable progress than source specific BART
controls for affected EGUs for SO2 and NOx, a State’s reasonable
progress analyses may indicate that additional controls beyond CAIR may
be necessary to meet the RPGs set for one or more the Class I areas.

7.	What is the relationship of RH BART to RAVI BART?

RAVI BART (Part I of the visibility program) is a separate regulatory
requirement from RH BART (Part II of the visibility program).  RAVI BART
treats visibility impacts from one source or a small group of sources,
as opposed to RH BART, which treats visibility impacts over a wide
geographic area.  EPA promulgated regulations addressing “reasonably
attributable visibility impairment” or RAVI in 1980.  Under these
regulations, the requirement for a BART analysis is triggered where the
FLM certifies there exists reasonable attributable impairment of
visibility.  You may find this document a useful guide to understanding
the RAVI  process:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.wrapair.org/forums/mtf/documents/ravi_bart/Final_RA_BART_Rep
ort.pdf

"
http://www.wrapair.org/forums/mtf/documents/ravi_bart/Final_RA_BART_Repo
rt.pdf

Once a State has met the requirements in the RH regulations for BART or
implemented an alternative measure, then the BART requirements of the
Act have been met and BART sources will be subject to regulation under
the RH program in the same manner as other sources.  40 CFR
51.308(e)(3).  Therefore, even though a State may satisfy BART via a 308
SIP, an FLM may still certify RAVI, thus triggering a RAVI BART
attribution determination.

8.	What happens if RH SIPs are late?

Section 110(m) of the CAA provides discretionary authority for EPA to
impose sanctions for failure to submit a required plan.

9.	What is EPA's position on the need to treat VOCs and ammonia as
visibility-impairing pollutants?  If a State wishes to address VOCs
and/or ammonia as visibility impairing pollutants, what tools are
available to do this?

The BART Guidelines direct that States should look at SO2, NOx, and
direct PM emissions in determining whether sources cause or contribute
to visibility impairment, including both PM10 and PM2.5.  As stated in
the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39160), “States should exercise their
judgment in deciding whether [VOCs or ammonia] impair  visibility in an
area … and in deciding whether VOCs or ammonia emissions from a source
are likely to have an impact on visibility in an area.”  A formal
showing of an individual decision that a source of VOC or ammonia
emissions is not subject to BART review is not necessary.

10.	51.308(d)(3)(v)(B) requires that the State, in developing its LTS,
consider measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities.
What should this include?

States should include construction activities in their emission
inventories that are used for long-term strategy development.  When EPA
promulgated the RHR in 1999, emissions from construction activities,
such as emissions from non-road diesel equipment, and large scale
wind-blown dust from rapidly growing areas like Las Vegas and Phoenix,
were a major concern.  Subsequently, EPA has promulgated rules for
on-road and non-road heavy duty diesel engines.  States should include
the emission reductions from those rules in their SIP planning.  If
States have areas where wind blown dust from human activities
contributes to a reduction in visibility at Class I areas, they should
consider measures to mitigate this source of visibility-impairment.  The
Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) has a number of products related
to dust that can be downloaded from their site at:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.wrapair.org"  http://www.wrapair.org

11.	What is EPA's expectation for filling missing data in the IMPROVE
record?  How many years are required to determine the baseline
visibility if data is missing in the 2000-2004 record?  Are 3 years
sufficient (IMPROVE expectation)?  Need to create 5 years ?

The "Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional haze Rule"
addresses this question in several areas.  Five (5) years of data from
the 2000-2004 period should be used.  However, because of the deployment
of monitors this length of data may not be available for all Class I
areas.  The Tracking guidance recognizes this and recommends that a
minimum of three years of data should be used if more years do not exist
(see pages 1-4, and 2-8).

All five years should be used if available and suitable per guidance
recommendations.  If not, then a minimum of three years is recommended.
You should not recreate data for years that the monitor was not
operational because of the further uncertainty that this data adds.  If
less than three years of complete data are not available, consultation
with EPA is recommended.  The Tracking guidance suggests that a
case-by-case proposal on how this data should be processed should be
developed in consultation with EPA OAQPS (and the Regional Office).

12.	How are international emissions and natural events addressed in the
RH SIPs?

EPA addressed the treatment of international emissions in the 1999 RHR
in a discussion of the long-term strategy for making reasonable progress
in section III.G of the preamble to the final regional haze rule as
follows:

"The EPA agrees that the projected emissions from international sources
will in some cases affect the ability of States to meet reasonable
progress goals. The EPA does not expect States to restrict emissions
from domestic sources to offset the impacts of international transport
of pollution. We believe that States should evaluate the impacts of
current and projected emissions from international sources in their
regional haze programs, particularly in cases where it has already been
well documented that such sources are important. At the same time, EPA
will work with the governments of Canada and Mexico to seek cooperative
solutions on transboundary pollution problems."  64 Fed. Reg. 35714,
35736 (July 1, 1999).

EPA provided additional clarification in the preamble to the 1999 RHR on
how States should properly evaluate international emissions, when we
discussed the States' obligation to submit five-year reports evaluating
progress toward the RPG for each Class I area:

"If the State finds that international emissions sources are responsible
for a substantial increase in emissions affecting visibility conditions
in any Class I area or causing a deficiency in plan implementation, the
State must submit a technical demonstration to EPA in support of its
finding. If EPA agrees with the State's finding, EPA will take
appropriate action to address the international emissions through
available mechanisms. Appropriate mechanisms for addressing
visibility-impairing emissions from international sources are further
discussed in unit III.G on the long-term strategy."  64 Fed. Reg. at
35747.

Both in explaining RPGs and in assessing whether current implementation
plan strategies are achieving them, States can take into account the
nature of international emissions.  For instance, after having applied
the four statutory factors and calculated their RPGs, states can at
their discretion, quantify the effects of international emissions on
their ability to reach RPGs.  However, States should not directly
consider the effects of international emissions when calculating their
uniform rates of progress by either adding the effects of international
emissions to their estimates of natural conditions, or by subtracting
international emissions from current conditions.  Either of these
approaches conflicts with the basic definitions of "current conditions"
(baseline conditions for the first SIP) and "natural conditions," as
described in the 1999 RHR.  64 Fed. Reg. 35728, (July 1, 1999).

Those natural events most commonly linked to RH are wind blown dust and
emissions from biomass burning.  EPA has long recognized the natural
role of fire in the ecosystem.  Consequently, in determining natural
background for a Class I area, EPA believes States should be permitted
to consider some amount of fire in the calculation.  If a State finds
during the five year period review that an unusual natural event such as
a large wildfire is affecting progress, this can be taken into account
in its assessment of whether the current SIP are sufficient to meet the
RPGs.  The State should submit a technical demonstration showing its
estimate of the wildfires’ contribution to visibility impairment to
support its conclusion.APPENDIX:  Question 5 cost equations

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

Average cost for an individual source

Average cost of control option A = annualized capital  + operating and
maintenance $ option A / tons removed option A

Average cost of control option B = annualized capital  + operating and
maintenance $ option B / tons removed option B

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 We use the following definitions for analyzing
control options across a source category or subcategory:

Average of individual source costs:

Average of individual source costs of control option A =

control costs source 1/ tons removed source 1 + control costs source 2/
tons removed source 2 ....

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

total number of sources

Average cost over the category:

Average cost over the category of control option A =

control costs source 1 + control costs source 2  ....

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

 tons removed source 1+tons removed source 2 ….

 PAGE   12

 PAGE   20


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 239 (Friday, December 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80118-80119]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27197]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-2226]

Cheese Products Deviating from Identity Standard; Temporary
Permit for Market Testing

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing
that a temporary permit has been issued to Bongards Creameries (the
applicant) to market test several pasteurized standardized cheeses that
deviate from the U.S. standards of identity for cheese products. The
temporary permit will allow the applicant to evaluate commercial
viability of the products and to collect data on consumer acceptance of
the products.

DATES: This permit is effective for 15 months, beginning on the date
the applicant introduces or causes introduction of the test products
into interstate commerce, but not later than March 11, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marjan Morravej, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration,
5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are giving notice that we have issued a
temporary permit to Bongards Creameries. We are issuing the temporary
permit in accordance with 21 CFR 130.17, which addresses temporary
permits for interstate shipments of experimental packs of food varying
from the requirements of standards of identity issued under section 401
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 341).
    The permit covers interstate marketing test of several pasteurized
standardized cheeses. The test products deviate from the standards of
identity for cheese products under 21 CFR 133.167, 133.169, 133.170,
and 133.173. For the purpose of this permit, natamycin, which is not
permitted under the standards of identity for these cheese products,
would be added as a mold inhibitor in the standardized cheeses. The
inhibitor would be incorporated into blended and processed cheese just
prior to pasteurization and further cast into slices (or packaging into
loaves or other final forms as in the case of pasteurized process
cheese spread). Natamycin, which is stable under typical thermal
processing conditions for pasteurized cheeses, would be added directly
to cheese blends just prior to pasteurization, as is done with other
mold inhibitors such as sorbic acid, sodium propionate, and their
approved variants. The final concentration of natamycin would not
exceed 20 parts per million and would be effective at producing process
and blended slices with a shelf life of up to 150 days before seeing
mold growth.
    The purpose of the temporary permit is to allow the applicant to
market test the products throughout the United States. The permit will
allow the applicant to evaluate commercial viability of the products
and to collect data on consumer acceptance of the products.
    This permit provides for the temporary marketing of a maximum of
100 million pounds (45,359,237 kg) of the test products. The test
products will be manufactured at the Bongards Creamery facilities
located at 13200 County Rd. 51, Bongards, MN 55368, and 3001 Hwy. 45
Bypass West, Humboldt, TN 38343.
    Bongards Creameries will produce, market test, and distribute the
test products throughout the United States. The following sliced cheese
products will be market tested: American Pasteurized Process Cheese,
Reduced Fat and Reduced Sodium American Pasteurized Process Cheese,
Restricted Melt American Pasteurized Process Cheese, American Swiss
Pasteurized Process Cheese, White American Pasteurized Process Cheese,
American with Jalapeno Pasteurized Process Cheese, Pasteurized Blended
Cheddar Cheese, Pasteurized Reduced Fat Cheddar Cheese, Pasteurized
Blended Swiss Cheese, Pasteurized Blended Pepper Jack Cheese,
Pasteurized Blended Low-Moisture Part Skim Mozzarella Cheese, and
Pasteurized Blended Provolone Cheese.
    In addition, the following products will be market tested for
further manufacturing: Yellow Restricted Melt Process American Slice,
Yellow Reduced Fat/Reduced Sodium Process American Slice, Yellow
Reduced Sodium Process American Slice, and Yellow Process American
Cheese Food Slice.
    Each ingredient used in the food must be declared on the labels as
required by the applicable sections of 21 CFR part 101. This permit is
effective for 15 months, beginning on the date the applicant introduces
or causes the introduction of the test products into

interstate commerce, but not later than March 11, 2021.

    Dated: December 7, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-27197 Filed 12-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P