[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 80 (Thursday, April 27, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19329-19330]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08448]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0258; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-15]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Colorado City, AZ

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Colorado City Municipal
Airport, Colorado City, AZ, to support the implementation of new Area
Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument
approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the
airport. Also, this action would update the geographic coordinates of
the airport to match the FAA's current aeronautical database.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1-800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2017-0258; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-15, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html. FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Clark, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Colorado City Municipal Airport, Colorado City, AZ.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0258/
Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-15''. The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective
September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending
upward from 700

feet above the surface at Colorado City Municipal Airport, Colorado
City, AZ. The airspace would be modified from the 6.5-mile radius of
the airport to 7.8 miles west and 2 miles east of the 163[deg] (from
173[deg]) bearing from the airport to 16 miles (from 12 miles) south of
the airport to contain the NDB-A procedure turn, and a segment would be
added from the 6.5-mile radius of the airport extending to 15.1 miles
southeast of the airport to support a new RNAV GPS RWY 29 instrument
approach procedure for IFR operations at the airport.
    The Class E airspace area extending upward from 1,200 feet would be
removed as there is sufficient 1,200 foot airspace provided by St.
George Class E airspace extending from 700 feet above the surface and
Grand Canyon Class E en route airspace. Also, this action would update
the geographic coordinates of the airport to lat. 36[deg]57'36'' N.,
long. 113[deg]00'50'' W. (from lat. 36[deg]57'08'' N., long.
113[deg]00'59'' W.), to match the FAA's current aeronautical database.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AWP AZ E5 Colorado City, AZ [Modified]

Colorado City Municipal Airport, AZ
    (Lat. 36[deg]57'36'' N., long. 113[deg]00'50'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the Colorado City Municipal Airport, and
within 7.8 miles west and 4.2 miles east of a 163[deg] bearing
extending from the airport to 16 miles south of the airport, and
within 2 miles each side of a 123[deg] bearing from the airport
extending to 15.1 miles southeast of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 19, 2017.
Sam S.L. Shrimpton,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-08448 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 75 (Friday, April 17, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21329-21333]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07476]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70

[EPA-R07-OAR-2019-0532; FRL-10007-72-Region 7]

Air Plan Approval; Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and Approval
of Operating Permit Program for Iowa and Nebraska; Definition of
Chemical Process Plants Under State Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Regulations and Operating Permit Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
revisions to the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for Iowa, Kansas,
Missouri and Nebraska and is also approving revisions to the Operating
Permit Programs for Iowa and Nebraska. The SIP revisions incorporate
changes to the definition of chemical process plants under the States'
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations and change
the same definition in the approved State operating permit programs.
Consistent with an EPA regulation finalized in 2007, this action
approves several State rules that modify the definition of chemical
process plant to exclude ethanol manufacturing facilities that produce
ethanol by natural fermentation processes. Approving these modified
definitions into the SIP establishes that the PSD major source
applicability threshold in the SIPs for these ethanol plants is 250
tons per year (tpy) (rather than 100 tpy) and removes the requirement
to include fugitive emissions when determining if the source is major
for PSD. In addition, this action approves changes to the Iowa and
Nebraska Title V operating permit programs that remove the requirement
to include fugitive emissions when determining if a source is major for
Title V purposes. The EPA concludes that the changes to the State rules
described herein are approvable because they are consistent with EPA
regulations governing State PSD and Title V programs and will not
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA)), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2019-0532. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Stone, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number (913) 551-
7714; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of the SIP and Operating
Permit Plan revisions been met?
III. The EPA's Response to Comments
IV. What actions are the EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is approving revisions to SIPs received by EPA from Iowa on
November 15, 2007, Kansas on November 23, 2009, Missouri on December 7,
2009, and March 20, 2019, and Nebraska on August 28, 2007, and
September 11, 2018. The EPA is also approving revisions to the Iowa and
Nebraska Operating Permit Programs. These revisions conform the State
rules to changes to EPA regulations reflected in the EPA's final rule
entitled ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Nonattainment New
Source Review (NA NSR), and Title V: Treatment of Certain Ethanol
Production Facilities Under the `Major Emitting Facility' Definition''
(hereinafter referred to as the ``2007 Ethanol Rule'') as published in
the Federal Register on May 1, 2007 (72 FR 24059). The 2007 Ethanol
Rule amended the PSD definition of ``major stationary source'' to
exclude certain ethanol facilities from the ``chemical process plant''
source category and clarified that the PSD major source applicability
threshold for certain ethanol plants is 250 tpy (rather than 100 tpy).
The 2007 Ethanol Rule also removed the requirement to include fugitive
emissions when determining if the source is major for PSD and Title V
permitting.

II. Have the requirements for approval of the SIP and Operating Permit
Plan revisions been met?

    All of the aforementioned regulations are consistent with EPA's PSD
program requirements in 40 CFR 51.166 and Title V program requirements
in 40 CFR part 70, as amended in the 2007 Ethanol Rule. Further, all
submissions have met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102.
    Iowa published a Notice of Intended Action in the Iowa
Administrative Bulletin on August 1, 2007. A public hearing was held on
September 5, 2007. The public comment period closed on September 6,
2007. Iowa received six

sets of written comments during the public comment period. Iowa
provided a response to each public comment but did not change the rule
based on the comments.
    Kansas published the proposed changes in the Kansas Register May
21, 2009. A public hearing was held on July 29, 2009. Kansas received
three comment letters. Only one change was made to the proposed
regulations based on public comments and that change was not relevant
to this action.
    Missouri published the proposed changes in the Missouri Register on
December 31, 2008. A public hearing was held on February 3, 2009.
Missouri received fifteen comments and made changes to the proposed
regulations that were not relevant to this action. Missouri made
additional changes to the regulations proposed to be approved by the
EPA in this action that were published in the Missouri Register on
August 1, 2018. Missouri received thirty-seven comments from nine
sources including the EPA. Missouri made some changes to the proposed
regulations that are relevant to this action based on comments received
during the public comment period.
    Nebraska published the proposed changes in the Omaha World-Herald
on July 13, 2007. A public hearing was held on August 17, 2007.
Nebraska did not receive any adverse comments for the proposed changes.
    The SIP submissions also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40
CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, these revisions meet the
substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and
implementing regulations. These revisions are also consistent with
applicable EPA requirements of Title V of the CAA and 40 CFR part 70.

III. The EPA's Response to Comments

    The public comment period on the EPA's proposed rule was open from
November 12, 2019 through December 12, 2019 (84 FR 60968, November 12,
2019). During this period, EPA received two comments.
    Comment 1: The commenter states that the proposed rule should not
be approved because it will release more harmful chemicals into the air
that will negatively impact climate change.
    Response 1: The technical support documents (TSDs) that are
available in the docket for the proposed rule explain EPA's reasoning
that emissions increases associated with the proposed action are not
expected to occur. The States affected by this rulemaking have already
implemented the 2007 ethanol rule, and ethanol production has increased
while air quality has improved for every pollutant monitored in each of
the States.
    The TSDs also analyze the impact of increasing the threshold to 250
tpy on ozone and particulate matter (PM) precursors in each State. The
analysis for ozone and secondary PM demonstrates that sources of this
size will not cause any interference with attainment or maintenance of
the standards in these States.
    The EPA also describes requirements for each State's minor source
NSR program because the facilities that would be below the 250 tpy PSD
major source threshold under this rulemaking will still need to obtain
minor source construction permits. The States are prohibited from
issuing minor source NSR permits that would lead to a violation of the
NAAQS. Additionally, Federal rules such as New Source Performance
Standards and Maximum Achievable Control Technology regulations will
control emissions of pollutants that ethanol plants could emit
regardless of the major source status under PSD.
    In addition, this action does not alter the regulation of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which is a driver of climate change.
Under the CAA, its implementing regulations, and the States' air
regulations, GHG emissions from ethanol plants could increase
regardless of whether the proposed changes to the SIP and Title V
Operating permit programs are approved. Thus this action does not
increase the allowable emissions of GHGs or change how GHGs are
regulated by EPA and each State.
    Comment 2: The commenter requests that EPA make corrections to the
revisions to the table in 40 CFR 52.820 in order to clarify the
provisions of 567 Iowa Administrative Code rule 33.3 that are approved
into the SIP, and those that have not been submitted to the EPA for
approval into the SIP.
    Response 2: We have made the suggested corrections to the table in
this final rule document in order to correct typographical errors in
previous versions of the table to 40 CFR 52.820. Specifically, in the
explanation column of the table for the EPA-Approved Iowa Regulations,
instead of stating that the provisions of the 2010 PM2.5
PSD-increments SILS and SMCs rule, published in the on October 20,
2010, relating to SILs and SMCs that were affected by the January 22,
2013, U.S. Court of Appeals decisions are not SIP approved, we have
revised the table to state that these provisions are not, at the
State's request, included in Iowa's SIP provisions March 14, 2014.
    Also, in the same portion of that table we have removed the
following sentence: ``Iowa's rule incorporating EPA's 2008 `fugitive
emissions rule' (published in the Federal Register on December 19,
2008) is not SIP-approved.'' That sentence was erroneous because Iowa's
SIP approved rule does not include the ``fugitive emissions rule''.

IV. What actions are the EPA taking?

    The EPA is approving revisions to the Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and
Nebraska SIPs and the Iowa and Nebraska Operating Permit Programs. We
are taking final action after consideration of the two comments
received on the notice of proposed rulemaking.
    The revisions to State rules that EPA is approving change the
definition of ``major stationary source'' under the States' PSD
regulations and the Operating Permit Program for Iowa and Nebraska.
This action approves changes to state regulations, which make clear
that the PSD applicability threshold for certain ethanol plants is 250
tpy and remove the requirement to include fugitive emissions when
determining if an ethanol plant is major for PSD and, in Iowa and
Nebraska, Title V permitting. The EPA has determined that these
revisions are consistent with EPA's PSD and Title V regulations and
that approval of these revisions is consistent with the requirements of
CAA section 110(l) and will not adversely impact air quality. The EPA's
analysis is available in the technical support documents that were
prepared for each State SIP and are in the docket for this action.
Approval of the revisions to these SIPs will ensure consistency between
the State and federally-approved rules and ensure Federal
enforceability of the State's revised air program rules.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska Regulations described in the
amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
    These materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the
SIPs and

have been incorporated by reference by EPA into those plans. Therefore,
they are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the
CAA as of the effective date of of the EPA's final approval (i.e. the
effective date of this action). They will also will be incorporated by
reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 3, 2020.
Edward Chu,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR parts
52 and 70 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart Q--Iowa

0
2. In Sec.  52.820, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``567-33.3'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.820  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                          EPA-Approved Iowa Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       State
       Iowa  citation                 Title          effective     EPA approval date          Explanation
                                                        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Iowa Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Commission [567]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 33--Special Regulations and Construction Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources--Prevention of
                                 Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
567-33.3....................  Special Construction    4/18/2018  4/17/2020, [insert    Provisions of the 2010
                               Permit Requirements                Federal Register      PM2.5 PSD--Increments,
                               for Major                          citation].            SILs and SMCs rule,
                               Stationary Sources                                       published in the Federal
                               in Areas Designated                                      Register on October 20,
                               Attainment or                                            2010, relating to SILs
                               Unclassified (PSD).                                      and SMCs that were
                                                                                affected by the January
                                                                                22, 2013, U.S. Court of
                                                                                Appeals decision are
                                                                                not, at the state's
                                                                                request, included in
                                                                                Iowa's SIP provisions
                                                                                (see Federal Register,
                                                                                March 14, 2014) (Vol.
                                                                                79, No. 50).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Subpart R--Kansas

0
3. In Sec.  52.870, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``K.A.R. 28-19-350'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                         EPA-Approved Kansas Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       State
      Kansas  citation                Title          effective     EPA approval date          Explanation
                                                        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Kansas Department of Health and Environment Ambient Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Construction Permits And Approvals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
K.A.R. 28-19-350............  Prevention of          12/28/2012  4/17/2020, [insert    Provisions of the 2010
                               Significant                        Federal Register      PM2.5 PSD-Increments,
                               Deterioration (PSD)                citation].            SILs and SMCs rule
                               of Air Quality.                                          relating to SILs and
                                                                                SMCs that were affected
                                                                                by the January 22, 2013,
                                                                                U.S. Court of Appeals
                                                                                decision are not SIP
                                                                                approved. Provisions of
                                                                                the 2002 NSR reform rule
                                                                                relating to the Clean
                                                                                Unit Exemption,
                                                                                Pollution Control
                                                                                Projects, and exemption
                                                                                from recordkeeping
                                                                                provisions for certain
                                                                                sources using the actual-
                                                                                to-projected-actual
                                                                                emissions projections
                                                                                test are not SIP
                                                                                approved. In addition,
                                                                                we have not approved
                                                                                Kansas rule
                                                                                incorporating EPA's 2008
                                                                                ``fugitive emissions
                                                                                rule'' (published in the
                                                                                Federal Register on
                                                                                December 19, 2008).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
4. In Sec.  52.1320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``10-6.060'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       State
     Missouri  citation               Title          effective     EPA approval date          Explanation
                                                        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control
                                      Regulations for the State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-6.060....................  Construction Permits    3/30/2019  4/17/2020, [insert    Provisions of the 2010
                               Required.                          Federal Register      PM2.5 PSD--Increments,
                                                                  citation].            SILs and SMCs rule
                                                                                relating to SILs and
                                                                                SMCs that were affected
                                                                                by the January 22, 2013
                                                                                U.S. Court of Appeals
                                                                                decision are not SIP
                                                                                approved.
                                                                                Provisions of the 2002
                                                                                NSR reform rule relating
                                                                                to the Clean Unit
                                                                                Exemption, Pollution
                                                                                Control Projects, and
                                                                                exemption from
                                                                                recordkeeping provisions
                                                                                for certain sources
                                                                                using the actual-to-
                                                                                projected-actual
                                                                                emissions projections
                                                                                test are not SIP
                                                                                approved.
                                                                                In addition, we have not
                                                                                approved Missouri's rule
                                                                                incorporating EPA's 2008
                                                                                ``fugitive emissions
                                                                                rule'' (published in the
                                                                                Federal Register on
                                                                                December 19, 2008).
                                                                                Although exemptions
                                                                                previously listed in 10
                                                                                CSR 10-6.060 have been
                                                                                transferred to 10 CSR 10-
                                                                                6.061, the federally-
                                                                                approved SIP continues
                                                                                to include the following
                                                                                exemption, ``Livestock
                                                                                and livestock handling
                                                                                systems from which the
                                                                                only potential
                                                                                contaminant is odorous
                                                                                gas.''
                                                                                Section 9, pertaining to
                                                                                hazardous air
                                                                                pollutants, is not SIP
                                                                                approved.

                                                                                EPA previously approved
                                                                                the 3/30/2016 state
                                                                                effective date version
                                                                                of 10 CSR 10-6.060, with
                                                                                the above exceptions, in
                                                                                a Federal Register
                                                                                document published
                                                                                October 11, 2016. EPA is
                                                                                only approving section
                                                                                7, subsection 7(A)(1),
                                                                                and section 8 from the 3/
                                                                                30/2019 State effective
                                                                                date version of 10 CSR
                                                                                10-6.060. All remaining
                                                                                revisions to the 3/30/
                                                                                2019 version of 10 CSR
                                                                                10-6.060 are not SIP
                                                                                approved.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Subpart CC--Nebraska

0
5. In Sec.  52.1420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``129-2'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Nebraska Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       State
     Nebraska  citation               Title          effective     EPA approval date          Explanation
                                                        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                STATE OF NEBRASKA
                                       Department of Environmental Quality
                                   Title 129--Nebraska Air Quality Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
129-2.......................  Definition of Major      2/6/2008  4/17/2020, [insert    .........................
                               Source.                            Federal Register
                                                                  citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 70--STATE OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAMS

0
6. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

0
7. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (u) under ``Iowa''.
0
b. Adding paragraph (q) under ``Nebraska; City of Omaha; Lincoln-
Lancaster County Health Department''.
    The additions read as follows:

APPENDIX A TO PART 70--APPROVAL STATUS OF STATE AND LOCAL OPERATING
PERMITS PROGRAMS

* * * * *

Iowa

* * * * *
    (u) The Iowa Department of Natural Resources submitted revisions
to Iowa Chapter 22.100 ``Definitions for Title V Operating Permits''
on November 15, 2007. The State revised the definition of
``Stationary source categories'' by revising the definition of
``Chemical process plants'' such that fugitive emissions from
certain ethanol production facilities are not considered in
determining whether the facility is subject to Title V permitting.
The state effective date is October 4, 2007. This revision is
effective May 18, 2020.
* * * * *

Nebraska; City of Omaha; Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department

* * * * *
    (q) The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality submitted
revisions to the Nebraska Administrative Code, Title 129, chapter 2,
section 002.20 on November 19, 2010. Chapter 2, section 002.20 was
revised to exclude ethanol production facilities from the definition
of ``chemical process plants'' such that fugitive emissions are not
considered in determining whether the facility is subject to Title V
permitting. The state effective date is February 6, 2008.
    This revision is effective May 18, 2020.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-07476 Filed 4-16-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


97 commenters agreed that sources should not be required to go below that level ( e. g., to an arbitrary level such as 0.2), arguing that EPA has neither a legal mandate nor a rational basis for limiting the HI to less than 1.0.

One of the commenters stated that the comparison of RfC or similarly derived health benchmarks to modeled maximum annual average concentrations is extremely health protective and meets the " ample margin of safety" requirement of the statute. Given this high degree of conservatism, the commenter stated that neither the CAA nor sound policy requires that background and multipathway exposures be incorporated into an evaluation of the degree of risk posed by affected sources. Under these circumstances, the commenter argued, the mere possibility of exposure from multiple sources, or multiple HAP from a single source, does not justify a uniform adjustment to all RfC values or similarly derived health benchmarks for all facilities.

Similarly, the commenter believed that EPA should not mandate modeling risks from the entire facility, but rather only from the portions of the facility that are within the source category.

Two other commenters objected to a noncancer HI of 1.0 ( or greater). The first commenter stated that, while the HI is useful in evaluating site specific impacts, choosing a generic HI ( some multiple of 1.0) for application to a wide range of sites is inappropriate. The commenter added that selection of an arbitrary multiple of 1.0 is not science, does not conform with 98 section 112( d)( 4), and does not protect public health. The commenter stated that the selection of a HI of 0.2 as a rough screening tool seemed reasonable, although it was unsupported by any analysis. The commenter added that if a default HI is used,

then EPA should include a provision that would disallow its use to exclude a facility from MACT if better background information is available suggesting the default HI does not protect public health. However, the commenter believed that the CAA does not support an interpretation that includes the use of such a default to allow exemptions for individual sources. The commenter believed that the expansion of the interpretation to include nonthreshold pollutants is in direct conflict with section 112( d)( 4).

The second commenter evaluated the four potential options that EPA proposed to ensure that a risk analysis under section 112( d)( 4) considered the total ambient air concentrations of all the HAP to which the public is exposed. Option 1, which requires that the HI for all pollutants be no greater than 1.0, does not consider additional sources or background and is unacceptable,

according to the commenter. Option 3, which uses existing data such as NATA to determine background and requires that the HI be no greater than 1.0, is also unacceptable, according to the commenter. The commenter pointed out that EPA has clearly stated at public meetings that the NATA is not to be used to make regulatory decisions. ( As the first commenter noted, NATA 99 information includes warnings that the information is useful for large scale planning purposes and not for local area assessment.)

The commenter added that NATA relies on data submitted to EPA voluntarily and has been reported to consistently underestimate measured concentrations. Until EPA requires that HAP inventories be submitted as proposed in the CERR, and the NATA conducts refined modeling around stationary sources, the commenter argued that NATA should not be considered for estimating background concentrations. Option 4, which allows individual facilities to monitor the HAP backgrounds for use in their own analysis,

requires oversight and evaluation by the States to ensure proper site selections and analytical methods and should not be considered, according to the commenter. The commenter believed Option 2, which requires that the HI be no greater than 0.2,

would be the only viable option at this time using a conservative risk screening analysis. However, the commenter did not endorse using any of the proposed threshold limit applicability methods to exempt process sources from NESHAP requirements.

Two other commenters raised additional objections to EPA's proposed methodologies for determining the contribution of other sources to the overall hazard. The first commenter stated that EPA had not discussed the need to assess cumulative risks,

aggregate exposures, and health impacts associated with exposure to chemical mixtures emitted from facilities within the source categories. The commenter referred EPA to the extensive progress 100 that has been made in more completely addressing risks from exposure to air pollution and integrated decisionmaking in such areas as children's risk issues, cumulative exposure, and chemical mixtures. The commenter requested that the recent advancements be incorporated into the risk assessment methods and overall cost estimates associated with risk based exemptions in the proposed rules.

The second commenter stated that EPA's proposed alternative methodologies for determining the contribution of other sources to cumulative risk are untenable and deeply flawed. According to the commenter, the first and second approaches ( HI of 1.0 and HI of 0.2) would allow exemptions based on blanket assumptions about exposure, but EPA provided no basis for making any assumption.

The commenter noted that the third option suggests relying on existing estimates of background levels of certain HAP, but argued that these information sources ( e. g., NATA, ATSDR) are neither designed nor adequately precise to be used as the basis of regulatory applicability determinations. According to the commenter, EPA has cautioned that NATA emission estimates " cannot be used to identify exposures and risks for specific individuals,

or even to identify exposures and risks in small geographic regions such as a specific census tract." ( U. S. EPA, Limitations in the 1996 National Scale Air Toxics Assessment) The commenter pointed out that NATA does not estimate exposure to a number of HAP, ( e. g., hydrogen fluoride ( HF), HCl), and the ATSDR profiles 101 offer generalized assessments, but are not specific enough to establish as baseline for a given facility.

Response: For today's final PCWP rule, we are considering an HI limit of 1.0 to provide an ample margin of safety for protecting public health under section 112( c)( 9). However, we do not believe that increasing the HI limit above 1.0 is justified by currently available science. Safety factors are included in the dose response values used to calculate the HI to account for scientific uncertainties, and their inclusion helps ensure that using a HI limit of 1.0 provides an ample margin of safety. The TOSHI approach required for site specific risk assessment in today's final PCWP rule assumes additivity in mixtures of chemicals that target the same organ system.

We are not using background concentrations from NATA in today's final PCWP rule. Several commenters presumed the use of CAA section 112( d)( 4) for the PCWP delisting. However, we are using CAA section 112( c)( 9) and not section 112( d)( 4). Discussion of our authority to consider background and multipathway exposures is provided elsewhere in this section.

e. Tiered approach Comment: Several commenters supported EPA's proposed tiered modeling approach, which begins with simple " look up tables" and 102 progresses to more refined facility specific risk assessments.

One commenter noted that the State of Wisconsin uses a tiered approach similar to the approach proposed by EPA, and in general,

this approach has worked well. The approach first allows sources to demonstrate compliance if their potential emissions, stack height, and exhaust direction are within the ranges provided in conservative look up tables. The second tier allows facilities to provide site specific modeling to demonstrate compliance with ambient air standards at the property line. Another commenter added that EPA should be flexible in accepting evolving improvements in exposure assessment and risk modeling, and should take into account the inherent strengths and weaknesses of the types of modeling used. A third commenter noted that most sources would use the tiered modeling approach but believed that facilities should be allowed to use any EPA approved modeling technique to demonstrate that their emissions are below the applicable health benchmark. The commenter also recommended that, for the final PCWP rule, EPA adopt the model regulatory text that they provided for the risk based framework.

One commenter opposed EPA's proposed tiered modeling approach, stating that if EPA decided to pursue a generic risk screening approach under section 112( d)( 4), it would need to be conservative. According to the commenter, the use of a (

nontiered conservative approach would represent the least cost to the regulated community and would be the least time consuming for 103 1EPA 1999 States reviewing the facility's application.

Response: We acknowledge the model regulatory text submitted by one of the commenters. However, we developed our own regulatory text to specify how facilities must demonstrate that they are part of the low risk subcategory. For air toxics risk assessments, we are implementing a tiered approach. The screening level or tier of analysis is designed, through the use of conservative inputs, to identify situations for risks are unlikely to be of concern. Screening tier analyses are designed to be relatively simple, inexpensive, and quick,

, defined decision criteria, and models with simplifying conservative assumptions as inputs. More refined levels of analysis include the refinement of aspects of the analysis that are thought to influence risk most or may contain the greatest uncertainty. At the refined tier, each analysis requires more effort, but produces results that are less uncertain and less conservative ( i. e., less likely to overestimate risk). 1 Appendix B to Subpart DDDD describes a process based on this air toxics approach that must be used by facilities attempting to demonstrate eligibility for the low risk subcategory of PCWP facilities. Facilities may demonstrate eligibility for the low risk subcategory using either the " look up table" analysis ( described in Appendix B to Subpart DDDD) or a tiered site 104 specific analysis ( described in Appendix B to Subpart DDDD and the " Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library.") As discussed elsewhere in this section, we will be reviewing the low risk demonstrations submitted by PCWP facilities to remove the burden of reviewing tiered risk assessments from States.

We will review all risk assessments performed in support of a demonstration of eligibility for the low risk subcategory with regard to a variety of aspects, including the consistency of the methodology and modeling techniques with those currently accepted by the scientific community and EPA. However, we will consider assessments that use risk methodology and modeling techniques other than those described in EPA's " Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library," provided they have undergone scientific peer review pertinent to their use in the submitted assessment.

Comment: One commenter stated that, for EPA to conduct an up front risk analysis, the procedure would need to be conducted using the most conservative stack parameters, with a hypothetical facility fence line to satisfy the many impact scenarios that could occur.

Response: We conducted a rough risk assessment to estimate the number of PCWP facilities that might qualify for the delisted low risk subcategory. The data used in our rough risk assessment were a combination of facility specific data ( e. g., process unit throughput) and industry average data ( e. g., industry average stack parameters, average emission factors for estimating 105 emissions). Facilities do not qualify for the low risk subcategory based on our rough risk assessment,

. However,

facilities can qualify for inclusion in the delisted subcategory by using site specific emissions test data and the look up tables or by conducting a low risk demonstration, as described in Appendix B to Subpart DDDD and/ or in the " Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library." Look up tables were developed using the conservative air dispersion model SCREEN3. Stack height and fenceline distance vary in the tables, so facilities will choose the most appropriate combination of these parameters.

Invariant facility parameters built into the look up tables are either average values or biased towards conservative values,

based on available data. Thus, we believe the look up tables are appropriately conservative.

f. Risk assessment guidance Comment: Several commenters stated that EPA neglected to follow its own guidelines and science policies in its proposal for risk based exemptions. One commenter argued that EPA had proposed a disorganized and cursory approach to implement riskbased exemptions that fell far below the quality of risk analysis typically required by EPA across its other programs. According 106 to the commenter, the proposal did not adhere to EPA's established guidelines for characterizing human health and ecological risks, did not incorporate risk assessment guidelines for conducting multi pathway risk assessments, and did not reference EPA guidelines for cumulative risk assessment that specifically require consideration of non inhalation pathways.

The commenter noted that EPA's March 1995 Risk Characterization Policy set goals of transparency, clarity, consistency, and reasonableness which apply to risk assessment practices across EPA. The commenter argued that the inconsistencies between EPA's proposal to provide risk based exemptions in the MACT standard process and its risk assessment guidelines would undermine many regulatory programs throughout EPA.

The commenter stated that the risk based scheme was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the use of public health and ecological risk assessments in the regulatory process. The commenter added that the Federal risk assessment guidelines require EPA to conduct risk assessments consistently across all Federal environmental programs. According to the commenter, the approaches outlined by industry's white papers neglected to include risk characterization, which provides needed and appropriate information to decision makers. The approaches also did not incorporate the critical recommendation of the Commission of Risk Assessment and Risk Management to establish a framework for stakeholder based risk management decision making. The 107 commenter stated that these omissions in the proposal would prevent regulatory agencies from demonstrating to the public that public health and the environment are adequately protected.

Several commenters stated that EPA also needed to be consistent with residual risk guidelines currently under development. One commenter stated that the tools needed to identify sources eligible for the risk based exemption would be the same tools necessary for a section 112( f) residual risk assessment, which the commenter understood were not yet ready for general use. Another commenter noted that the cancer risk guidelines are currently undergoing public review.

A third commenter stated they had serious reservations about EPA's apparent attempt to conduct an ad hoc risk analysis for specific source categories by seeking comments on the specific elements to be included in the risk analysis. The commenter did not believe these rulemakings were an adequate forum to develop this risk analysis process. The commenter indicated that any risk analysis conducted by the EPA must adhere to the risk assessment principles outlined in the Residual Risk Report to Congress.

One commenter argued that the proposal is consistent with EPA risk assessment guidelines and policies and believed that others' technical objections were without merit. The commenter added that the contemplated risk based applicability criteria were not in conflict with the classification of carcinogens and 108 non carcinogens.

Response: The tiered approach to risk assessment for risk management decision making under CAA section 112( c)( 9) being implemented with this rule is consistent with that described in the Residual Risk Report to Congress. For air toxics risk assessments in general, we are implementing a tiered approach.

The screening level or tier of analysis is designed, through the use of conservative inputs, to identify situations for risks are unlikely to be of concern. Screening tier analyses are designed to be relatively simple, inexpensive, and quick,

, defined decision criteria, and models with simplifying conservative assumptions as inputs. More refined levels of analysis include the refinement of aspects of the analysis that are thought to influence risk most or may contain the greatest uncertainty. At the refined tier, each analysis requires more effort, but produces results that are less uncertain and less conservative ( i. e., less likely to overestimate risk). While Appendix B to Subpart DDDD describes a process based on this air toxics approach particular to risk assessment for 112( c)( 9), the basis for this process stems from the general air toxics tiered approach presented in the Residual Risk Report to Congress, which was developed with full consideration of EPA risk assessment policy, guidance, and methodology.

Section 112( c)( 9) requires us to determine whether the public and the environment are protected. Any analyses we did to 109 establish the feasibility of the risk based approach or to develop health protective look up tables included consideration of human health as well as ecological criteria. The supporting information to this rule details the assessment we conducted to determine the feasibility of delisting a low risk subcategory and the look up tables we developed to be used by facilities in their demonstrations, thereby providing a public demonstration of the method employed to ensure protection of the public health and environment in decisions associated with this rule.

Additionally, potential for exposures via non inhalation pathways ( e. g., ingestion) is also inherent in the values for persistent,

bioaccumulative HAP in the look up tables.

We agree that the tools needed to identify sources eligible for the delisted low risk subcategory of PCWP facilities are the same tools necessary for a section 112( f) residual risk assessment. And, as stated in the Residual Risk Report to Congress, we intend to rely on the general methodology and process illustrated by the framework presented in that report in our risk assessment activities throughout the air toxics program.

Facilities must determine eligibility for the delisted low risk subcategory using either a look up table analysis ( based on the 110 2U. S. EPA. 1999. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. NCEA F 0644. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC look up tables included in Appendix B to Subpart DDDD) or using the suggested site specific methodology described together with the criteria in Appendix B to Subpart DDDD. The " Air Toxics Risk Assessment Guidance Library" is the same document that could be used for facility specific residual risk assessments required under CAA section 112( f). This document has been peer reviewed and was developed according to the principles, tools and methods outlined in the Residual Risk Report to Congress.

The comment that the new cancer guidelines are still under review is correct but, as stated in the November 29, 2001 Federal Register notice ( 66 FR 59593), these 1999 draft guidelines are to be considered the interim guidance. 2 4. Implementation a. State and local resources Comment: Several commenters contended that the proposal would place a very intensive resource demand on State and local agencies ( e. g., permitting authorities) to review sources' risk assessments. State and local agencies may not have expertise in risk assessment methodology or the resources needed to verify information submitted with each risk assessment. The commenters argued that, if EPA intends to have the affected industries 111 conduct the analysis, then EPA must consider the cost incurred by States, which may lack the necessary expertise to evaluate and review these analyses.

One commenter pointed out that the proposal only considered cost for the regulated source category, and not for regulatory agencies. According to the commenter, EPA did not consider the cost and resources associated with the following: ( 1) the public process required in reviewing and approving the proposed approaches and, if approved, making substantial changes to existing regulations; ( 2) the development of methods and guidance for human health and ecological risk assessments of affected sources; ( 3) the review by already budgetarily constrained State agencies of the assessments and assurance of adequate public participation in the process; and ( 4) the collection and verification of source specific data needed for conducting risk assessments ( e. g., emissions data and stack parameters). The commenter added that the proposal did not address the critical need for qualified risk assessors to evaluate the scientific and technical basis for exempting facilities from regulation on a case by case basis. The commenter estimated that if one additional full time employee ( FTE) were required per State to review risk based exemptions, then the cost would be an additional $ 7.5 million annually.

Another commenter pointed out that the ongoing assurance that low risk facilities remain low risk would also increase the 112 burden for the State and local agencies. The commenter also stated that diverting State and local resources to focus on presumably insignificant sources would detract from efforts associated with significant sources.

A third commenter stated that, since States generally do not have the right staff or resources to hire additional staff to review lengthy and complex risk analyses, they may refuse delegation of the PCWP rule, which would shift the burden to EPA in a time of tight budgets. According to the commenter, large expenditures are not justified when only a small number of facilities may end up qualifying for an exemption.

By contrast, several commenters believe that a risk based program approaches could be structured and implemented in a manner that would not impose a substantial cost or resource burden on States. One commenter stated that assuring compliance with risk based applicability criteria would be straightforward and would not entail an added resource burden. Another commenter suggested that EPA work closely with States and industry to implement the risk based approach in a non burdensome manner.

Two commenters stated that the risk based approaches, like other MACT standards, would simply be incorporated into each State's existing title V program. Because the title V framework already exists, the addition of a risk based MACT standard would not require States to overhaul existing permitting programs. One commenter stated that the risk based approach would not increase 113 the number of sources regulated by each State. The commenter believed that the final MACT rule itself should set forth the applicability criteria, including the threshold levels of exposure, that sources must meet to qualify for a risk based determination. Each source would have the burden of demonstrating that its exposures are below this limit, and,

therefore, the States would not be required to develop their own risk assessment guidance or to conduct source specific risk assessments. One commenter stated that the risk assessment guidance to be issued by EPA within the next several months would streamline the risk based approach and further reduce any burden on the States. Three commenters supported having States charge reasonable increased fees ( as a component of annual operating permit fees or other fees) to cover any significant additional workload demands associated with reviewing more detailed tier 2/ 3 modeling.

Response: We acknowledge that review of the eligibility demonstrations for the delisted low risk subcategory will require resources for verification of information and may require expertise in risk assessment methodology that is not yet available is some States. We also acknowledge that States may reject delegation of the PCWP rule. To alleviate these concerns and to ensure consistency in the applicability determinations for the delisted low risk subcategory from State to State, we will review and approve/ disapprove the low risk subcategory 114 eligibility demonstrations submitted by PCWP facilities.

We have considered the above comments in developing the criteria defining the delisted low risk subcategory of PCWP facilities, and we believe that the approach that is included in today's final PCWP rule provides clear, flexible requirements and enforceable compliance parameters. Today's final PCWP rule provides two ways that a facility may demonstrate that they are part of the delisted low risk subcategory of PCWP facilities.

First, look up tables, which are included in Appendix B to Subpart DDDD, allow facilities to determine, using a limited number of site specific input parameters, whether emissions from their sources might cause an HI limit to be exceeded. Finally, a tiered modeling approach ( each tier less conservative and more complex than the previous) can be used by those facilities that cannot demonstrate that they are part of the delisted low risk subcategory using the look up tables. With respect to guidance for performing low risk demonstrations, all of the procedures for performing risk assessments are provided in EPA's " Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library," and, therefore, no additional guidance needs to be developed.

Only a portion of the 223 PCWP major sources will submit eligibility demonstrations for low risk subcategory. Of this portion of major sources, we believe that most will find themselves in the low risk subcategory based on screening analyses ( e. g., look up table or tier 1 site specific risk 115 assessment). However, it is likely that some facilities will submit more detailed tiered risk modeling results. We are experienced in reviewing emission test results and site specific risk assessments and will allocate resources for completion of these tasks. We will review and approve/ disapprove low risk subcategory eligibility demonstrations based on look up table analyses and low risk demonstrations. Following review of each low risk subcategory eligibility demonstration for a facility, we will issue a letter of approval/ disapproval to the facility and will send a carbon copy to the facility's title V permitting authority. The criteria for low risk subcategory delisting are clearly spelled out in today` s final PCWP rule, along with criteria needed to ensure that facilities in the low risk subcategory remain low risk. Because these requirements are clearly spelled out in today's final PCWP rule and because any standards or requirements created under section 112 are considered applicable requirements under 40 CFR Part 70, the lowrisk subcategory delisting would be incorporated into title V programs, and States would not have to overhaul existing permitting programs.

With respect to the burden associated with ongoing assurance that facilities remain low risk, the burden to States of assuring that facilities continue to be low risk will be no more than the burden associated with ongoing title V enforcement because the parameters that rendered a facility low risk will be incorporated 116 into the title V permit. We have developed continuous compliance requirements for facilities that initially qualify as low risk,

and the facilities will be responsible for demonstrating that they continue to be low risk if changes are made to the facilities' operations that would affect the risk that the facilities pose to human health and the environment. We will review and approve/ disapprove revised low risk demonstrations.

With respect to our consideration of the public process required in reviewing/ approving the proposed approaches and making substantial changes to existing regulations, our inclusion of a risk based compliance option in today's final PCWP rule applies only to the PCWP rule and does not directly impact other regulations. Furthermore, the PCWP proposal provided the public with the opportunity to comment on the consideration of risk in the PCWP rule.

Regarding the costs and resources associated with assuring adequate public participation in the process of reviewing the risk analyses, draft permits and permit applications must be made available from the state or local agency responsible for issuing the permit, or in the case where EPA is issuing the permit, from the EPA regional office. Members of the public may request that the state or local agency include them on their public notice mailing list, thus providing the public the opportunity to review the risk analysis. Therefore, most of the burden of assuring public participation falls on the public to notify the permitting 117 authority of their interest in the permitting process. Regarding the opportunity for public participation, every proposed Title V permit has a 30 day public comment period and a 45 day EPA review period. If EPA does not object to the permit, any member of the public may petition EPA to object to the permit within 60 days of the end of the EPA review period.

Comment: One commenter stated that if EPA intends to have the affected industries conduct the analysis, then EPA must consider the additional cost incurred by smaller sources to do the analysis.

Response: As mentioned previously, there are two ways that a PCWP facility may demonstrate eligibility for the delisted lowrisk subcategory: ( 1) look up tables, and ( 2) a tiered modeling approach ( each tier less conservative and more complex than the previous) that can be used by facilities that cannot demonstrate eligibility for the delisted low risk subcategory using the lookup tables. The look up tables included in Appendix B to Subpart DDDD allow facilities to determine, using a limited number of site specific input parameters, whether they are eligible for the low risk subcategory. Attempting to demonstrate eligibility for the delisted low risk subcategory is completely voluntary.

Facilities that are not eligible for the delisted low risk subcategory based on look up tables are not required to pursue any of the tiered analyses ( which are increasingly complex and expensive for each tier). Each facility must weigh the costs of 118 making a low risk demonstration with the costs of MACT compliance. We believe the costs associated with demonstrating eligibility for the low risk subcategory will be lower than the costs associated with complying with MACT for many facilities,

particularly smaller facilities. The majority of the cost associated with demonstrating eligibility for the delisted lowrisk subcategory will be emissions testing costs. Smaller facilities have fewer process units to be tested, and, because of their lower production rates relative to larger facilities, they will also likely have lower emissions. Thus, smaller PCWP facilities may be more likely than their larger counterparts to fall into the delisted low risk subcategory. Successfully demonstrating eligibility for the low risk provisions will result in cost savings for smaller facilities because these facilities will not have to expend the costs ( e. g., the costs of installing operating, and maintaining emission controls) for MACT compliance.

The cost and economic analyses developed as part of the MACT rulemaking were based on the costs to install controls and comply with the MACT requirements. The costs associated with voluntarily conducting risk analyses were not estimated.

Therefore, our estimate of costs associated with today's final PCWP rule are conservative, because the control costs are significantly higher than the costs of conducting emissions tests and risk analyses. 119 b. Title V Comment: Two commenters opposed implementing the risk based approaches through the States' existing title V programs. One commenter stated that risk based exemptions are such an implausible interpretation of the CAA that States do not even have the authority to grant them under their title V permit programs. The commenter was not aware of any approach to ensure that emissions remain below specified levels. According to the commenter, MACT standard applicability is the gate keeper for being subject to a title V operating permit. Once a source is exempt from a MACT standard, it would be exempt from the monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements needed to demonstrate compliance.

The other commenter stated that implementing the section 112( d)( 4) exemption interpretation through title V would be unlawful and unworkable. The commenter stated that Congress knew how to authorize States to establish case by case emission standards and implement them using post rulemaking title V permits because it did so in section 112( j). However, it did not do so in section 112( d)( 4). The commenter argued that EPA lacks the authority to delegate section 112( d)( 4) to the States and may not implement any section 112( d)( 4) applicability cutoff through a post rulemaking mechanism such as a title V permit. With the exception of carefully delineated compliance monitoring,

reporting, and certification provisions in the statute, title V 120 permits may not create applicable requirements or exemptions from applicable requirements. The commenter added that, even if this approach is legal, it is still unworkable because of the resource challenges faced by States and the widespread delays in issuing title V permits. The commenter noted that State permit engineers and officials that prepare and issue title V permits generally are not experts in risk assessment or air dispersion modeling.

According to the commenter, States and the public would be confronted with more self serving facility arguments and data than could be adequately scrutinized, which could cause important health and risk determinations to be rubber stamped or cause the permit process to grind to a halt. The commenter added that most State title V permit programs are already behind the statute's permit issuance deadlines, and implementation of EPA's risk based approach would exacerbate this unlawful situation further.

Several commenters supported implementing the risk based approaches in the PCWP rule through the States' existing title V programs. One commenter suggested that States which qualify and choose to do so should be delegated the authority to implement the risk based alternatives. The commenter added that this would allow States to coordinate between the MACT alternatives and State air toxics requirements.

A second commenter stated that implementing the section 112( d)( 4) risk based approach though title V would be lawful and workable. According to the commenter, no facility specific post 121 rulemaking mechanisms nor expansion of the scope of title V permit process would be necessary, just the incorporation of the NESHAP's risk based compliance option, which would contain the criteria for showing what the source would have to meet to qualify for the risk based approach. The commenter believed that the objections from other commenters to the risk based criteria were invalid, arguing that their objections were in tension with the conclusions of a CAAAC Workgroup on State/ Local/ Tribal air toxics issues and that their comments provided no basis for concluding that States lack the legal authority to implement the risk based approach.

A third commenter noted that title V permits could provide enforceable limitations, appropriate recordkeeping requirements,

and periodic review upon renewal. The commenter added that,

since the PCWP rule would apply only to major sources, title V permits already are required and would not be an added burden;

title V could also be used to implement applicability cutoffs.

However, the workload involved with the options requiring modeling, ambient monitoring, or other means to establish background concentrations would be a hindrance to any implementation mechanism. The commenter stated that, with respect to potential risk based provisions, monitoring is more useful for demonstrating non compliance than compliance because the regulation would apply to potential emissions under any weather conditions, whereas monitoring reflects current weather 122 and emission conditions.

A fourth commenter suggested changes to the § 63.2240 of the proposed rule that would incorporate permitting procedures similar to those under 40 CFR Part 70, which would allow facilities that pose little risk in their respective airsheds to apply for a risk determination to be incorporated into their title V permits. Each source applying to be permitted as a subcategorized toxic emitter with an acceptable risk determination would be required to perform detailed risk analyses for review by the public at large, local citizens, State agencies, and Federal authorities. This permitting exercise would allow managers of the airshed to develop custom fit compliance plans that address source specific risks and would allow the most flexibility for forest producers to reduce their identified risks.

Response: As discussed previously, we have determined that a section 112( d)( 4) risk based exemption would not be appropriate for the PCWP source category. Instead, using our discretion in establishing subcategories of sources based on size, type, or class, we have established and delisted a low risk subcategory of PCWP facilities. The requirements for qualifying for and remaining in the delisted low risk subcategory are clearly spelled out in Appendix B to Subpart DDDD, and any standards or requirements created under section 112 are considered applicable requirements under 40 CFR Part 70. Therefore, the parameters 123 used to certify that facilities are part of the delisted low risk subcategory would be incorporated into title V permits, and States would not have to overhaul existing permitting programs.

Facilities that qualify as part of the delisted low risk subcategory will initially demonstrate that they are low risk using either the look up tables or site specific monitoring.

They will demonstrate that risk does not increase by documenting that parameters that impact the risk analysis do not change in a way that increases risk. Facilities will not be required to perform detailed risk analyses for public review.

We acknowledge the resource challenges faced by States, and,

therefore, we will retain the authority to review and approve/ disapprove the low risk subcategory eligibility demonstrations submitted by PCWP facilities.

With regard to the title V permit programs being behind the statute's permit issuance deadlines, the incorporation of the NESHAP requirements is a necessary step that will require some resources. Inclusion of the low risk subcategory delisting should be a straightforward part of the process and should not cause significant delay.