we believe that the current major NSR regulations already provide states
considerable ability to design and to implement their SIPs in ways that
provide operational flexibility while addressing the types of concerns
raised by commenters.  The major NSR regulations, in general, are quite
detailed and prescriptive as to what changes are subject to review, but
afford considerable flexibility to determine specifically how subject
NSR projects must be permitted.  The inherent flexibility for states to
design and implement their SIP provisions with respect to NSR projects
arises from the structure and content of the part 51 PSD and the
nonattainment (“NA”) NSR regulations.

	First, the definition of “project” can accommodate a wide spectrum
of physical and operational changes, provided such changes are
authorized by the permitting authority.  Similarly, the definition of
“emissions unit” is elastic in its ability to include several types
of situations, ranging from a simple piece of equipment to a collection
of them at the same site.  A “project” involves changes to or
addition of one or more emissions units.  Thus, the permitting authority
may define these terms in its SIP broadly or narrowly, for a particular
case, provided that the physical and operational changes included in the
project are covered by the major NSR requirements, as appropriate.

	Moreover, the other provisions of the part 51 PSD and NA NSR
regulations do not impose limitations on the scope or implementation of
NSR projects once they are defined by the permitting authority.  The NA
NSR regulations do not contain any specific provisions that restrict how
the permitting authority might define the scope, duration, and
timeliness of an NSR project.  The part 51 PSD regulations only
indirectly affect the acceptable scope of an NSR project in their
requirements and the BACT reevaluations of certain phases of phased
construction projects.

	As a result, under the current major NSR regulations, with the
exception of the relatively narrow class of construction projects with
independent phases for PSD purposes, states are free to design and
implement their major NSR SIPs to address contemporaneity of
construction, project scope and duration, number and types of emissions
units comprising the project which are subject to emissions tracking,
timely construction of authorized changes, and reevaluation of initial
control technology and/or air quality impact reviews as they judge to be
reasonable.  For example, a SIP may be structured to allow the
permitting authority to determine these aspects of a major NSR permit on
a case-by-case basis after balancing appropriately the benefits of
operational flexibility with the types of concerns raised by commenters
on the Green Group proposal.

	The same part 51 flexibility has allowed states to adopt voluntarily
some additional PSD regulatory constraints into their SIPs similar to
those contained in paragraphs (r)(2) and (n)(1) of the 40 CFR part 52
regulations, which regulate the timeliness of construction and the
required level of information for reviewing proposed NSR projects.  The
part 52 regulations, which apply to interim EPA implementation of the
PSD program in the absence of an approved SIP, contain these additional
requirements in paragraphs (r)(2) and (n)(1) to help preserve the
available PSD air quality increments until the state can assume full
responsibility for the program under an approved SIP.

	The EPA believes that states which have opted to include these
additional regulatory constraints in their SIPs retain considerable
discretion to interpret and implement them within the meaning of their
SIP approved language.  Affected states may choose to implement their
programs consistent with policies that EPA has developed in our
implementation of these provisions or to explore the adoption of
different policies through their own administrative procedures.  In
addition, in accordance with their plans for preserving PSD increments
and for protecting the NAAQS, states may maintain their current SIPs or
opt to revise them as appropriate consistent with the applicable part 51
and/or part D requirements in order to allow greater flexibility to the
permitting authority in reasonably determining how NSR projects can be
approved on a case-by-case basis.  The Agency is willing to work with
states to evaluate their current SIPs and to assist them in discussing
possible revisions where requested to do so.

	The EPA is interested in learning more as to whether the flexibility
under existing major NSR regulations to sources and permitting
authorities is sufficient and appropriate.  In order to gain additional
perspectives about the currently available level of flexibility –
including the need for it; the benefits, costs, and/or impediments
associated with its use; and any lack of safeguards to assure its
effectiveness – the Agency is encouraging states and sources to
explore how projects subject to major NSR might be more flexibly
permitted and administratively managed.  Where a state would agree to
investigate such possibilities with a requesting source, we ask that the
states give us an advance notice of the project before any permit is
released for comment.  In addition, EPA requests that the state make
available relevant information about both the development of the permit
and its subsequent implementation so as to facilitate any future
analysis on our part.  We also intend to collect other information that
would be useful to informing us as to whether a new rulemaking should be
initiated in the future.

 	In summary, the concerns of commenters on the potential inflexibility
of the proposed Green Group affirms the need, at least for now, to
maintain the relative openness of the current major NSR rules.  These
rules essentially defer to the states as to whether to adopt more
specific requirements or to resolve flexibility needs on a case-by-case
basis.  This outcome is entirely consistent with the stated preference
contained in state comments received on the proposal that states be
allowed to structure their own SIP programs with respect to NSR
flexibility.

	Given our decision to withdraw the Green Group proposal for the reasons
discussed above, we do not believe it is useful to respond directly to
the many comments received on specific aspects of the proposal.
Nevertheless, because our decision was based on the comments we
received, the comments are summarized below.

General Comments on Green Groups

Comments Generally Supporting Green Groups:

	Two air agencies (0064, 0068.1) and ten industry commenters (0068.1,
0071.1, 0072.1, 0074.1, 0075.1, 0076.1, 0077.1, 0079, 0083.1, 0084,
0096) generally supported the proposed revisions to the proposed Green
Group rules because they provide flexibility and certainty to sources.
Although though they supported the proposed revisions, at least one air
agency (0068.1) and four industry commenters (0071.1, 0075.1, 0079,
0084) explicitly stated that the proposed Green Group rules needed some
revisions before they could be approved.

One air agency (0068.1), and two industry commenters (0071.1, 0075.1)
believe that the proposed Green Group rules contain certain provisions
that would severely limit the operational flexibility the rules could
potentially provide to emissions activities in Green Groups.  The
commenters believed that the proposed rules can be revised so that they
will provide enough operational flexibility to be beneficial to the
regulated community, and yet will not jeopardize either of the
environmental benefits (compliance with BACT or LAER, and with the more
stringent PAL-based MRRT requirements), and will not be inconsistent
with current PSD or nonattainment NSR rules.  One air agency (0068.1)
stated that although they supported the idea of the Green Group, they
envisioned a somewhat broader concept than that proposed by EPA.

Two industry commenters (0071.1, 0075.1) concurred with EPA's goal
underlying the proposed Green Group rules to provide permittees with
increased operational flexibility to make physical or operational
changes "rapidly in response to market demands without the need to
undergo additional preconstruction permitting review" (i.e., PSD or
non-attainment NSR).

One industry commenter (0079) believes that Green Groups could be a
powerful incentive for companies to consider making accommodations for
future growth when installation state of the art controls on existing
equipment.  The commenter specified that it could be very attractive for
industries such as flexible packaging where printing and coating lines
are typically housed in buildings that are vented to pollution controls
because there is a very significant economy of size related to the types
of pollution control used in the industry. This type of mechanism is not
only consistent with company investment planning, but with the time it
would take to begin to recoup the expense of a new control device that
meets BACT or LAER that could handle loadings from a building.  However,
before a Green Group could be approved in this industry, EPA would need
to revise the definition in the proposed minimum permit requirements and
make several other clarifications.

	One industry commenter (0084) suggested that Green Groups be
incorporated into a facility’s NSR or title V permit by using State
Minor NSR programs. The Minor NSR program is as effective as a Major NSR
program provided that BACT and/or LAER are met.

Comments Generally Opposing Green Groups:

Six air agencies (0085.1, 0087, 0089, 0090.2, 0092.1, 0093.1) one
environmental group (0088), and two tribes (0066.1, 0078) generally
opposed the proposed Green Group concept.

	One air agency (0090.2) stated the Green Group proposal would allow
permitting to occur on a number of emissions units long before they are
actually constructed, while simultaneously allowing essentially
unregulated increases in emissions during the lifetime of the Green
Group approval.  Another air agency (0093.1) stated that the Green Group
proposal appears to present significant opportunities for abuse by
applicants.  A third air agency (0089) did not believe that the pilot
programs can be considered a basis for Green Groups.  The commenter
highlighted significant differences from the Green Group proposal and
the six pilot flexible permits analyzed by EPA.  One tribe (0078)
believes the implementation of this proposed rule will not make the
overall permitting process less burdensome or efficient regardless if
the timeframe is extended past the five-year mark.  Changes to current
SIPs and future TIPs or FIPs would take immense amount of time that the
permitting agency may not be able to invest.  The commenter stated that
the EPA’s potential projected time-savings may instead result in a
transfer of agency burden to the enforcement branches.  The commenter
stated that smaller permitting authorities may not be able to absorb the
increased permit analysis and inspection time at all, particularly the
amount of paperwork that will dramatically increase.  The commenter is
concerned in both large and small agencies this type of permitting could
easily slip through the cracks, with facilities knowingly or unknowingly
emitting more emissions than permitted due to the lack of oversight and
enforcement.

Comments on Whether Green Groups Should Be Mandatory

Comments Supporting:

Five industry commenters (0071.1, 0074.1, 0075.1, 0082.1, 0096) and one
private citizen (0053) agreed with the proposal that the Green Group
rules would be a mandatory minimum element of states' PSD and
non-attainment permitting programs.  Several of these commenters stated
that these provisions should be required because they afford permitting
flexibility while remaining protective of the environment.  Three of
these commenters (0071.1, 0074.1, 0075.1) pointed out that, even with
Green Groups as a mandatory program element, the permitting authority
will retain discretion as to whether to approve individual Green Groups.

	One industry commenter (0082.1) stated that EPA required that PALs be a
mandatory program element under the 2002 NSR Reforms rulemaking and
Green Groups would serve to complement the use of these source-wide
emissions caps or PALs.  Another of these industry commenters (0096)
stated that simply treating the Green Group rule as a voluntary measure
would signal to state permitting authorities that EPA does not place a
high priority on having this concept implemented.  One private citizen
(0053) supported the mandatory element within State implementation
plans, however, the commenter suggested the timeframe for States should
be either extended or be made more responsive to some States who express
concern in adopting the revisions.  The commenter believes that it is in
the best interest of State and local agencies who have no existing Green
Groups-like permitting programs and who demonstrate possible problems in
their ability to appropriately and effectively revise elements of their
own regulatory schemes, to be afforded more time to execute a Green
Groups program. This could assure State and regional air quality goals
are better met and state oversight capacity is not hindered by sudden
administrative changes.  The commenter proposed that the 3-year deadline
for State and local agencies to revise implementation plans either be
extended to a general 5-year maximum or preserve the 3-year provision
and grant permissible extensions up to five years on a case-by-case
basis if a permitting authority proves that it needs a period exceeding
the three years.

Comments Opposing:

	Eight air agencies (0062.1, 0065.1, 0080.1, 0085.1, 0089, 0090.2,
0092.1, 0093.1), one industry commenter (0084), one environmental group
(0088), and three tribes (0061.1, 0066.1, 0078) opposed the proposal
that the Green Group rules would be a mandatory minimum element of
states' PSD and non-attainment permitting programs.

	Three air agencies (0065.1, 0085.1, 0093.1) and one industry commenter
(0084) explicitly suggested that EPA make the Green Group concept
voluntary rather than mandatory program element for States.  One
industry commenter (0084) believes that if EPA develops an innovative
Green Group permitting program, then the majority of State permitting
agencies will incorporate the concept into their program on a voluntary
basis.  The commenter added that EPA funding could be used as incentives
for state agencies to voluntarily incorporate this concept into their
existing permitting programs.

	Six air agencies (0062.1, 0065.1, 0080.1, 0085.1, 0089, 0092.1) stated
that such mandatory language ignores the ability of a state or local
agency to have a more stringent new source review regulation.  Four of
these commenters (0065.1, 0080.1, 0089, 0092.1) stated that if
finalized, would violate Section 116 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 5 7416,
because Section 116 provides, with limited exceptions, that nothing in
the CAA "shall preclude or deny the right of any State or political
subdivision thereof to adopt or enforce (1) any standard or limitation
respecting, emissions of air pollutants or (2) any requirement
respecting control or abatement of air pollution."  Accordingly, States
are free to adopt rules more stringent than the federal requirements.
In addition, each State has "primary responsibility for assuring air
quality" within its borders and may adopt implementation plans that
specify the manner in which the NAAQS will be met.  The commenters
stated that because the CAA clearly authorizes state and local agencies
to implement more stringent requirements than the CAA requires, EPA has
no power to adopt a rule preventing a state from doing so.  Two of these
commenters (0065, 0085.1) added that because the Green Group provision
is on its face less stringent than existing NSR, since it allows new
sources to escape updated BACT/LAER for a period of up to 15 years, it
cannot be made mandatory upon the states.  Commenter 0065 stated that
EPA is apparently taking the view that this proposal actually results in
environmental benefit, so that it is in effect “more stringent” than
the prior rules, and can therefore be made mandatory.  Under this
theory, it is crucial that EPA clearly prove the environmental benefit
of the proposed rule.  Commenter 0085.1 citied Duquesne Light Co. v.
EPA, 1998, where Pennsylvania’s definition of “actual emissions”
was more stringent that EPA’s because it limited industry flexibility
to “look back” to set its baseline for purposed of calculating
emissions reduction credits.

	Three air agencies (0085.1, 0089, 0090.2) are concerned SIP revisions
would be required to incorporate a rule that arguably allows source
modifications to bypass NSR requirements.  The commenters stated the
proposal would force a lengthy regulatory effort to revise SIPs to
accommodate the program.  The commenters believe being forced to develop
the regulatory authority to incorporate a program that will not be used
is senseless and wasteful.  One of these commenters (0089) stated that
many jurisdictions will simply choose not to implement the rule if it is
promulgated, exercising their right to do so under section 116 of the
Act.  Another of these commenters (0090.2) believes the process will be
actively ignored by the regulatory community if it is required to be
included in its state air quality program, just as the PAL process has
been ignored.

	One air agency (0065.1) and one environmental group (0088) stated that
EPA lacks authority to require any element of the instant proposal to be
a mandatory minimum element of state or local operating permit programs
under title V of the CAA.

	One air agency (0065.1) is concerned about the EPA’s use of voluntary
pilot programs as the basis for the new proposal.  The commenter noted
that a recent Evaluation Report issued on September 25, 2007 by the
Office of Inspector General titled “Voluntary Programs Could Benefit
from Internal Policy Controls and a Systematic Management Approach”
suggests that there is no Agency-wide policy at EPA to collect
comparable data or conduct regular evaluations for such programs, in
which, EPA cannot determine the overall environmental impact of its
voluntary programs.  EPA lacks internal controls that outline specific
ways to determine the success or failure of EPA’s overall voluntary
program effort.  As a result, EPA cannot determine which voluntary
programs are succeeding or failing.  EPA also cannot determine which
programs should serve as models for future program development.
Similarly, one air agency (0093.1) stated that the Green Group proposal
represents a significant change in how existing, modified, and new
sources would be regulated under NSR to what agencies may have already
in place flexible permitting approaches.  The commenter stated that this
change will create an unwarranted burden on permitting agencies forced
to defend themselves against potential EPA sanctions or industry
challenges rather than collaborating with state and local interests to
create a workable version.

	Three tribes (0061.1, 0066.1, 0078) stated that the mandatory Green
Group option restricts the permitting authorities' ability to choose
appropriate sources and methods for flexible permitting.  The commenters
stated that Green Group provisions do not provide for adequate
consideration of critical issues specific to the source, permitting
authority, and environment, such as local topography; population
variables; Class designations; attainment/nonattainment designation;
exceptional events; compliance history; status of title V permit;
resources needed/available to maintain monitoring and reporting
requirements; and clear need for flexibility.  One of these commenters
(0066) believes a one size fits all does not work.  Another of these
commenters (0078) stated that the need for agency discretion is echoed
by comments made by the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management and the Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association
in their September 11, 2000, comment letter on White Paper #3 that
relevant criteria should be used to determine whether a facility should
receive flexible permits.

Comments on the Benefits of Green Groups

	Three air agencies (0064, 0065.1, 0090.2), and four industry commenters
(0068.1, 0071.1, 0074.1, 0075.1) commented on the benefits of Green
Groups.

	One air agency (0068.1) and two industry commenters (0071.1, 0075.1)
agreed with the benefits of the program that EPA has identified in the
preamble to the proposal.  The industry commenters (0071.1, 0075.1)
concurred with EPA's statement that the proposed Green Group rules would
provide environmental benefits because they will require "all emissions
activities [in a Green Group] to be controlled to the level of BACT or
LAER," even those emissions activities that would otherwise not be
subject to BACT or LAER.

One air agency (0065.1) stated that the proposal does not demonstrate
that allowing sources to avoid NSR through the Green Group proposal will
actually have any environmental benefit.  The commenter added since EPA
has not discussed other supporting data, it must be presumed there is
none.  The commenter provided extensive examples that EPA’s additional
arguments for environmental benefits under Green Groups are unsupported.

	The air agency (0065.1) also stated that there is little room for
voluntary improvements to reduce emissions as EPA assumes will occur
under the flexible permit concept in California.  The commenter noted
that under state law, all California air districts with “serious”
ozone pollution or worse are required to implement a control program
which requires “best available retrofit control technology” (BARCT),
which under state law is defined the same way as federal BACT.  Thus,
existing sources in much of California are already controlled to levels
that make it highly unlikely that substantial emissions reductions may
be made on a voluntary basis.  Thus, the supposed benefits of the
flexible permit program are unavailable in much of California.  Thus,
there is no basis for the conclusion that the proposed rule will provide
an environmental benefit, and could thus be considered “more
stringent” than the existing program.

	One air agency (0064) stated that the use of Green Groups will provide
more opportunities to reduce air pollution by encouraging the use of
pollution prevention and applying BACT requirements to existing units.

Comments on Public Participation

	One air agency (0080.1) believes that the public should have a right to
comment on proposed projects prior to the commencement of construction
or modification of a source.

	One air agency (0089) believes that opportunity for public involvement
is necessary at the time of construction.  The commenter noted that the
proposal suggests that permitting authorities use their discretion to
enhance the public participation process when warranted for a particular
flexible permit, and that the written comment period for a title V
permit renewal or significant permit modification should be expanded
from 30 to 45 days.  However, the commenter believes that these
proposals do not address the problem.

	Two tribes (0061.1, 0078) stated that there is no provision for public
notice or comment periods within the proposed ten-year life of Green
Group permits.  The commenters also believe that these opportunities for
public participation should take place at least every five years, to
allow for new developments at the source and in the local area.  One of
these commenters (0061.1) stated that the greatest problem within the
Green Group option is the opportunity provided for facilities to avoid
fundamental NSR modification, "best available control technologies"
(BACT), and "lowest achievable emissions rate" (LAER) requirements.
Another of these commenters (0078) also believes that these
opportunities for public participation should take place before initial
publication.

Other General Comments

	One federal agency (0099) recommended adding a new 40 CFR 51.165(j) to
the proposed rule, as follows: "Alternative flexible air permitting
plans may be approved by State or local authorities."  The commenter
supported approaches such as that used in the state of California in
which a facility following the general procedures of the local air
district was allowed to issue permits for minor changes, providing the
air district with an annual summary of its permit actions.  In this way,
the facility benefits from regulatory flexibility while the air district
collects the usual fees and maintains final approval authority over any
modifications and additions made by the facility.

Comments on the Scope Green Groups

Comments on Removing Units in a Green Group

Comments Supporting Removing Units in a Green Group:

One air agency (0069.1) agreed with the proposal that if a source
removes a particular emissions activity from an established Green Group,
the removed activity will be subject to major NSR, however, the proposed
rule language is silent on the issue of removing an emissions activity
from a Green Group.  The commenter suggests that a new paragraph be
added stating that the Administrator may remove an emissions activity
from a Green Group during its effective period only if the emissions
activity is contained in a new major NSR permit.  This requirement must
apply to both existing Green Group emissions activities as well as those
that have not yet been constructed but are included in Green Group
designation.

Comments Opposing Removing Units in a Green Group:

Six industry commenters (0070.1, 0071.1, 0073.1, 0074.1, 0075.1, 0077.1)
opposed the proposal that removal of an emission unit under a Green
Group would subject that unit to additional NSR review.  One of these
industry commenters (0070.1) believes that this requirement may be
appropriate if the unit has been modified during the period of time it
was in the Green Group; however, this requirement is inappropriate in
cases when the removed unit was unchanged.  The commenter added that if
the unit has been changed, the change should be reviewed against NSR
applicability criteria rather than automatically taken through NSR.
Another of these industry commenters (0073.1) stated that that this
feature of the proposal also is unnecessary and could greatly diminish
opportunities for manufacturers to use Green Groups.  The commenter
suggested that companies should be able to remove equipment from a Green
Group so long as the removal of the unit from the Green Group would not
result in a significant emissions increase; in no way should the removal
of a unit nullify the Green Group.  The commenter pointed out that
manufacturers remove and replace equipment for different products and
maintenance and the Green Group provides that flexibility by
guaranteeing the Green Group meets BACT/LAER without resulting in a
significant increase in a regulated pollutant, thus unless the removed
unit is significant or is changed, additional NSR makes no sense.
Another of these industry commenters (0075.1) requested that EPA revise
the proposed rules such that emissions units removed from a Green Group
would be required to meet the BACT/LAER level for that source as
calculated in determining the original Green Group emission cap.
Another of these industry commenters (0077.1) also agreed that EPA
should provide flexibility for a unit to withdraw without obtaining a
major NSR permit.  The commenter explained that while the Green Group
limit should be reduced to account for the emissions from the withdrawn
unit, it does not necessarily follow that the unit should obtain its own
minor NSR permit.  Another of these commenters (0071.1) requests that
EPA revise the proposed rules to provide that the removal of an
emissions activity from a Green Group designation will have to be
handled as a major modification only if the emissions attributed to that
emissions activity in the Green Group emissions limit are greater than
the applicable PSD or non-attainment “major modification”
significance level for the Green Group pollutant.

Other Comment on Removing Units in a Green Group:

	One industry commenter (0079.1) requested clarification that if a line
or other unit is removed from the Green Group, a Green Group does not
need to be re-permitted.

Comments on Emissions Units Being Routed to a Common Control Device

	Ten industry commenters (0068.1, 0070.1, 0071.1, 0073.1, 0074.1,
0075.1, 0076.1, 0077.1, 0079, 0084) opposed that EPA’s proposed
definition of a Green Group is limited to a collection of emissions
units routed to a common control device that meets BACT or LAER.

	Seven of these industry commenters (0070.1, 0071.1, 0073.1, 0074.1,
0075.1, 0076.1, 0077.1) stated that the important principle under this
proposal is that BACT or LAER be applied.  One of these industry
commenters (0071.1) requests that EPA revise the proposed Green Group
rules to require that a Green Group as a whole be controlled to meet
BACT or LAER, rather than requiring that in meeting BACT or LAER, the
emissions activities in a Green Group must use a “common, dedicated
air pollution control device” that meets BACT or LAER.  Another of
these industry commenters (0073.1) suggested that for other equipment,
the addition of an additive rather than a control device may constitute
BACT/LAER.  The commenter suggested that EPA revise the definition of
Green Group by eliminating the phrase “common dedicated air pollution
control device” and substituting instead “pollution reduction
measures that are determined by the Administrator to meet BACT or
LAER.”  Two of these industry commenters (0071.1, 0075.1) requested
that EPA revise 40 CFR 51.166(z)(3)(v) and 52.21(dd)(3)(v) (entitled
“control technology demonstration”) as follows:

(v) Control technology demonstration.  A demonstration that the proposed
control technology represents for the Green Group equals or exceeds
BACT.  Such a demonstration shall confirm that the average level of the
emissions control for the

emissions activities in the Green Group equals or exceeds BACT emissions
reduction capacity of the proposed common control device is sufficient
to meet the relevant emissions reduction requirement, considering the
maximum total emissions from the Green Group and the associated
characteristics of the combined emissions streams that will be ducted to
the common air pollution control device.  The BACT demonstration shall
be based on worst-case emissions from the new and existing emissions
activities authorized for the Green Group.

	Nine industry commenters (0068.1, 0071.1, 0073.1, 0074.1, 0075.1,
0076.1, 0077.1, 0079.1, 0084) were concerned the proposed scope of Green
Groups is unworkable for manufacturing facilities because it fails to
recognize the complexity and variation present in industry operations
(i.e. coating lines).  The commenters noted that emissions from such
emissions activities usually are not controlled by a single “common,
dedicated air pollution control device,” and instead uses a range of
control approaches, including pollution prevention. As a result, the
requirement to route to a single control device would eliminate all but
the smallest possible configurations of units from qualifying for the
Green Group flexibility.  One of these commenters (0074.1) added that if
every emission point were controlled by a “device,” there will be
multiple control devices, so that it is not practical to create several
Green Groups – and thus obtain several major NSR permits.  Another of
these industry commenters (0076.1) commented specifically on this
approach’s effect on the oil and refining industry, stating that this
approach is infeasible for refining and many other oil industry
operations.  Two of these commenters (0071.1, 0075.1) requested that the
term “a common, dedicated air pollution control device,” as that
term appears in the proposed definition of “Green Group,” be revised
to read “BACT/LAER-equivalent air emission limits” (with appropriate
contextual changes), and that the term “control device”, as that
term appears in the proposed Green Group rules, be revised to reflect
the fact that “BACT/LAER-equivalent emissions” can be achieved
without the use of a control device.  Another of these commenters
(0079.1) suggested that EPA revise the definition of “Green Group,”
to clarify that a “single” dedicated control device is not required
for such a flexible permit to be approved.  The commenter stated that
because they combine pollution prevention (i.e., low VOC emissions),
with partial enclosures and traditional pollution controls like
oxidizers, this definition would constrict these sources ability to
obtain a flexible permit when in fact, the controls individually all
meet BACT and/or LAER.  The commenter also stated that it is typical in
their industry to tie multiple oxidizers together into a singular
control system for a number of reasons, including iterative controls
when a unit is down for maintenance. Another of these commenters (0084)
believes that EPA should allow some expansion of the definition to
include situations similar to these two cases where Pollution Prevention
(P2) practices are being practiced.  The commenter offered the following
definition in (dd)(2)(i) for EPA’s consideration:

Green Group means a group of new and/or existing emission sources and
activities that is characterized by the use of BACT or LAER (depending
on the applicable rule) and that has been designated as a Green Group by
the Administrator in a permit issued pursuant to this section.  All
sources contained within a Green Group are considered a single emissions
unit for purposes of this section.

	One air agency (0093.1) stated that to ensure that the Green Group
BACT/LAER requirement will result in meaningful emission reductions or
constraints to future emission increases, EPA should propose a minimum
and substantial emission reduction standard for existing baseline and
future emissions to ensure that a project results in real emission
reductions in exchange for the permitting certainty received by Green
Group operators- presumably comparable to a common control device
meeting BACT/LAER requirements.

	One industry commenter (0068.1) stated that this may result in some
lost opportunities for the flexible permit concepts to be applied to
otherwise worthy emission sources.  The commenter asked a series of
questions regarding the definition of a Green Group, as follows:

Does the Green Group have to be a collection of emissions units, or can
it be a single emission unit that is equipped with BACT/LAER?

Can a source have more than one Green Group at the site?

Should the flexible permit concept be limited to only those emissions
units that employ emission control devices?

Why couldn’t Green Groups extend to emissions units that utilize other
techniques, such as BACT approved work practices and operational
controls to reduce or minimize emissions?

Comments on Green Groups Authorization

	Four industry commenters (0068.1, 0071.1, 0075.1, 0076.1) believe that
a requirement to specifically identify and describe in a Green Group
permit application the changes that would be authorized under the Green
Group authorization would unnecessarily and severely limit the
operational flexibility that Green Groups could provide.  The commenters
stated it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for
companies, especially in certain industries, to identify and describe
future changes that will occur during the Green Group term in the permit
application.  The commenters noted that the PAL rules do not have a
similar requirement.  The commenters also added that since the Green
Group rules are based on the same principles as the PAL rules, it makes
no sense and is not supportable for the operational flexibility for
Green Groups to be limited to physical or operational changes that are
identified and described in the Green Group applications.  In addition,
the commenters are aware that the state of Texas offers a flexible
permit program that, like PALs, does not limit operational flexibility
to physical or operational changes that are identified and described in
the permit application.  Instead, it allows any physical or operational
change to be made as long as the total source-wide emissions remain
below the flexible permit limit.  One of the industry commenters
(0076.1) stated that the level of detail to describe anticipated
activities should be limited to the minimum information needed to
validate that BACT/LAER requirements, as applicable, are being met;
because, though a company generally knows the categories of activities
that will occur and how they will impact emissions, it will not possess
detailed specifications for those activities until they occur.  The
commenter requested that EPA clarify that detailed specifications are
not needed in the permit and that categories of activities can be
included in the permit to provide the maximum flexibility possible.  Two
of these commenters (0071.1, 0075.1) requested that EPA revise all
appropriate parts of the proposed Green Group rules so that a Green
Group authorizes all physical or operational changes that may be made at
any of the emissions activities in the Green Group, provided that the
total Green Group emissions do not exceed its limit and the Green Group
continues to meet BACT or LAER.  Finally, the commenters request that
EPA revise 40 CFR 51.165(i)(1)(i), (i)(3)(iv), and (i)(7)(ii),
51.166(z)(1)(i), (z)(3)(iv), and (z)(7)(ii), and 52.21(dd)(1)(i),
(dd)(3)(iv), and (dd)(7)(ii), as follows:

(1) Applicability.

. . .

(i) Changes at a Green Group. Any physical change in or change in the
method of

operation authorized for a of any of the new or existing emissions
activities in the Green Group pursuant to the requirements in …”.

. . .

(3) Permit application requirements.

. . .

(iv) Description.  A description of the equipment that comprises the
Green Group, including a description of all of the new and existing
emissions activities in the Green Group, proposed physical changes or
changes the method of operation (which may the addition of new emissions
activities), and the common air pollution controls used for the Green
Group device.  The description must provide information about maximum
total emissions that will be generated by the Green Group’s new and
existing emissions activities and the associated characteristics of any
combined emissions streams (including the worst-case emissions stream)
that will be ducted to the a common air pollution control device.  The
description must be sufficient:

(a) To allow the reviewing authority to distinguish changes proposed to
be authorized in the Green Group from unauthorized changes; and

(b) Tto enable the reviewing authority to determine BACT for the Green
Group consistent with paragraphs . . .”.

. . .

(7) Content of Green Group permit.

. . .

(ii) A description of the equipment that comprises the Green Group,
including a description of all of the new and existing emissions
activities in the Green Group, any authorized physical changes or
changes the method of operation, and the common air pollution controls
used for the Green Group device. The description must provide
information about maximum total emissions that will be generated by the
Green Group’s new and existing emissions activities and the associated
characteristics of any combined emissions streams that will be ducted to
the a common air pollution control device. The description must be
sufficient to distinguish, when a change is subsequently made in the
Green Group, whether the change was authorized under the Green Group
permit.

	One industry commenter (0084) suggested to EPA that permitting agencies
should have the ability to establish a Green Group designation through a
State minor NSR permitting process, especially in cases where the
facilities have already been constructed and are currently operating.
The commenter suggested the following changes to the regulation in
(dd)(3):

(dd)(3) – Permit application requirements.  The owner or operator of a
major stationary source must request approval for a Green Group in an
application for a permit that meets the requirements of paragraphs (j)
and (r)(5) of this section, as applicable

Two industry commenters (0074.1, 0077.1) stated that the final rule
should clarify the ability to describe categories of anticipated
changes.  One of the industry commenters (0074.1) stated EPA should
clarify that the level of detail for anticipated changes used in
previous flexible permits is sufficient description for federal
purposes.  The commenters stated that companies generally know the
categories of activities that will occur and how those will impact
emissions but it will not possess detailed specifications for those
activities until they occur.  Another of these industry commenters
(0077.1) stated that for the future growth/anticipated changes element
of the proposal to work for participating companies, the level of detail
to describe anticipated activities should be limited to that which is
needed to validate that BACT or LAER, as applicable, is being met.  The
commenter believes that EPA’s discussion in the preamble is consistent
with allowing general categories of changes to be described without the
detail we know will be unavailable when permits are initially issued.
One of the commenters (0074.1) stated that EPA should state in the
regulatory language that it is acceptable for sources to list
“categories” of changes or activities. Specifically, EPA could
revise the “Description” paragraph (under 51.165, 51.166, 52.21) to
read as follows and make conforming changes to the other provisions of
the rules:

(iv) Description.  A description of the equipment that comprises the
Green Group, including a description of existing emissions activities,
proposed physical changes or changes in method of operation (which may
include the addition of new emissions activities and may involve
descriptions based on categories of physical changes or changes in
method of operation)….  The description must provide information about
maximum total emissions that will be generated by the Green Group's
emissions activities and the associated characteristics of the combined
emissions streams (including the worst-case emissions stream) that ….
The description must be sufficient:

(A) To allow the reviewing authority to distinguish changes proposed to
be authorized in the Green Group from unauthorized changes; and

(B) To enable the reviewing authority to determine [LAER/BACT] for the

Green Group ….

	One air agency (0069.1) stated that the permit application requirements
should be revised to include potential emissions for each emission
activity in the proposed Green Group.  The commenter stated that 40 CFR
52.21(dd)(13)(vii) requires that a source and the permitting agency
agree on the “maximum potential emissions without considering
enforceable emissions limitations or operational restrictions for an
emissions activity” for time periods when monitoring data is not
available.  This has been an area of confusion for PALs.  Finally, the
commenter stated that without potential emissions information for each
emissions activity, permitting authorities would be unable to confirm
the maximum total emissions and the worst-case emissions stream during
application review and at the Green Group, to reduce the Green Group
emissions limit to reflect newly applicable Federal requirements, and to
verify whether an emissions activity was taken into consideration (as an
existing, modified, or new emissions activity) in the establishment of
the Green Group during a compliance inspection.

	One air agency (0069.1) stated that the concern for Green Groups using
worst-case estimates versus actual emissions at various operating
conditions, which could lead to inflation of the actual emissions, is
unfounded.  The commenter asked then if, indeed, emission inflation is
not a great concern, could monitoring approaches for the Green Group
limit rely on worst-case emission rate approaches?

	One air agency (0069.1) noted that 40 CFR 52.21(dd)(13)(vi)(c) refers
to significant and major emissions activities, terms not defined for
Green Groups, but instead, in the PAL portion of the rules (40 CFR
52.21(aa)(2)(iv) and (xi)) (but not emissions activities) based on PAL
pollutants.  The commenter requested EPA define these terms in (dd).
The commenter added that because Green Group pollutant monitoring is
dependent on this size definition, the permit application must include
activity-by-activity potential to emit data in enough detail to
determine if any given activity is significant or major.

One air agency (0069.1) stated that the proposed Green Group
requirements neglect the emissions increases that may occur at emission
units outside (i.e. new emissions units, modified emissions units) of
the Green Group but which are directly related to the increases in
emissions that would be authorized within the Green Group.  The
commenter stated that provided that the increases and decreases in
emissions that occur outside of the Green Group are taken into
consideration is the establishment of the Green Group, these emission
changes would not be creditable for purposes of netting or offsets since
the changes would be relied upon in the issuance of the Green Group
permit.

Other Comments on the Scope of Green Groups

	One air agency (0093.1) stated that EPA's Green Group proposal appears
to present significant opportunities for abuse by applicants.  The
commenter gave an example that the proposal does not exclude a "Green
Group" project from being proposed that consists primarily or
exclusively of new equipment, which would allow a facility to circumvent
future and potentially more stringent BACT/LAER requirements that would
have applied under current permitting procedures.  The commenter also
added that it is not clear from EPA's proposal that any new applicable
requirements that go into effect after a Green Group proposal is
approved would be applied to existing (and new) emission activities
where the Green Group BACT/LAER has not yet been implemented or where
the applicable requirements go beyond the pre-approved BACT/LAER either
in technology, monitoring or other respects.  The commenter stated that
EPA should make clear that Green Groups are not immune from applicable
future requirements, nor can such Groups delay compliance by virtue of
the Green Group provisions allowing delayed implementation of BACT/LAER,
because without these protections, it may be possible for a source to
avoid or delay compliance with future requirements to the disadvantage
of the public and other businesses.

	One industry commenter (0068.1) stated the Green Group concept should
take into account the uniqueness of the source and the appropriate
BACT/LAER determination for that source.  The commenter also stated that
any emission unit that has been determined to have BACT or LAER should
not be subject to NSR for some period of time, especially for emissions
units with emission controls or work practices in place that represent
either a significant investment in capital or resources.

	One industry commenter (0076.1) supported the Green Group approach
allowing for a pre-described set of anticipated activities to be
included within the scope of the major NSR permit.  The commenter stated
that the approach is appropriate from an operational and legal
standpoint, and ensures appropriate emissions planning.

	One industry commenter (0079) requested clarification that if low VOC
Coatings are being utilized during a process, pollution controls can be
shut off or idled without negating the Green Group.

	One industry commenter (0084) supported the concept of a “Green
Group” designation and urged EPA to make the definition broader to
allow individual permitting authorities the option to establish “Green
Groups” for multiple emission sources.

	Two tribes (0061.1, 0066.1) were concerned that not all emission points
of a process will be included in a Green Group.  The commenter stated
that a process or emission source could be rerouted to another part of
the facility, thus meeting the requirements for the Green Group but
overall increasing the emissions for the facility.  Thus, the commenter
stated the permitting agency and/or EPA have to be careful with the
analysis and demonstration of base level limits for Green Groups.  The
commenter was also concerned that combined units or processes within a
Group could produce emission levels higher than if assessed as
individual emission points.

Comments on the Emissions Limits of Green Groups

Comments on Baseline Emissions

	Two air agencies (0065.1, 0087) and one industry commenter (0084)
disagreed with the proposed rule that provides that baseline emissions
should include “emissions associated with startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM).”  One air agency (0087) stated that the addition of
SSM to baseline emissions as these emissions are by definition erratic
and may not represent future performance.  The commenter added that
choosing a period of high SSM emissions as the baseline will likely
provide a larger Green Group emissions limit allowing the source more
latitude in installation of uncontrolled emissions units with consequent
adverse impact on states efforts to manage attainment status.

One air agency (0065.1) and one industry commenter (0084) stated that
baseline actual emissions should not include emissions associated with
malfunctions.  The commenters stated that adding malfunction emissions
to the baseline has the net effect of increasing the actual emissions
when determining the baseline.  One industry commenter (0084) stated
that because of the variability and inconsistency when quantifying these
emissions, including emissions associated with malfunctions will not
provide consistency in determining baseline Green Group emissions or
complying with the associated emission limit.  The commenter suggested
the following changes to the regulation:

(dd)(3)(ii) – Baseline actual emissions.  Calculations of the baseline
actual emissions from included emissions activities (with supporting
documentation). Baseline actual emissions are to include emissions
associated not only with operations of the activity, but also emissions
associated with startup and shutdowns.

(dd)(7)((ix) – A requirement that emissions calculations for
compliance purposes must include emissions from startups and shutdowns.

	One industry commenter (0077.1) noted that in some cases, separate,
additional BACT/LAER limits may be needed for “low concentration”
and “to address startup, shutdown, and malfunction” situations.  The
commenter agreed that the permit should address how compliance is
determined in such situations but we would not agree that BACT/LAER
needs to be applied to malfunctions.  Sources should be subject to the
general duty to minimize emissions during malfunction events but they
should not be required to do more in such situations.  The commenter
suggested EPA clarify in the final rule that this statement is not
intended to imply more than the standard requirement to minimize
emissions.

	One air agency (0087) has concerns about the inclusion of the apparent
unregulated inclusion of actual emissions from proposed physical,
operational, and other changes.

Comments on the 10-year Baseline Period:

One industry commenter (0074.1) supported using the 10-year baseline
period for baseline emission calculations for Green Groups.  The
commenter stated that the 10-year baseline period for baseline emission
calculations for Green Groups is necessary to accommodate cyclical
industries like automobile manufacturing.  The commenter stated that
under the prior approach that often relied on the 2 years immediately
preceding a change to set the baseline, economic downturns can penalize
companies just as they are trying to recover.

	One air agency (0087) opposed using the 10-year baseline period for
baseline emission calculations for Green Groups.  The commenter also
objected to this approach for a PAL as shown in the 12/31/02 NSR
Reforms.  The commenter stated that an unrestricted look back as
proposed allows the source the opportunity to select a period of the
highest emissions experienced (adjusted for any intervening rule
promulgations), thus allowing emissions at a level in excess of current
experience which may necessitate additional control measures in the
state to bring emissions in line with attainment requirements.

Comments on Fugitive Emissions

	One air agency (0093.1) disagreed with EPA’s proposal that fugitive
emissions from Green Group activities would be addressed as they would
under major NSR.  This seems inconsistent with the concept of a Green
Group consisting of a number of emission activities being controlled by
a common air pollution control device, and the definition of fugitive
emissions.  The commenter stated that EPA should clarify whether the
intent is to allow processes with fugitive emissions to participate in a
Green Group and, if so, whether such fugitive emissions must be captured
and controlled or whether separate P2 measures and/or BACT/LAER controls
would be required for both existing and new fugitive emissions.

	One industry commenter (0077.1) stated if fugitives are no longer
considered in NSR analyses, Green Group limits should not require
tracking of fugitive emissions.

Comments on Prior Limits

	Three industry commenters (0073.1, 0076.1, 0077.1) agreed with EPA’s
proposed Section 52.21(dd)(1)(ii) that “(r)(4)” limits are gone and
should never apply once a unit is approved as an emission activity
because “(r)(4)” cannot be circumvented once the group of activities
is subject to BACT/LAER.  Thus, any prior limit on potential to emit
that was taken is to eliminate NSR review and BACT or LAER is no longer
necessary once the activity is subject to the Green Group.

	Three industry commenters (0074.1, 0076.1, 0077.1) also noted that when
EPA explains in the preamble that when the major NSR permit is issued,
minor NSR permit limits that the source had previously accepted to avoid
major NSR would be eliminated.  EPA explains that it does not believe
regulatory language is needed to effectuate this change.  The commenters
agreed with the proposed policy, which is consistent with prior practice
implementing Section 52.21(r)(4), but is concerned that some of the
proposed regulatory language could be read as undermining the proposed
approach.  Specifically, proposed Section 52.21(dd)(1)(ii) states:

Prior requirements.  Except as provided under paragraph (dd)(1)(i)(c) of
this section, a major stationary source shall continue to comply with
all remaining applicable Federal or State requirements, emissions
limitations, and work practice requirements that were established prior
to the effective date of the Green Group.

	The referenced paragraph (dd)(1)(i)(c) only mentions Sections
52.21(j)(4) and 52.21(r)(2), whereas the relevant provision at issue is
52.21(r)(4).  Although EPA’s preamble explanation makes sense, the
blanket preservation of “prior requirements” with a narrow
“except” clause could be misread to mean that Section 52.21(r)(4)
limits are being retained for purposes of the Green Group approach.  One
of these commenters (0074.1) stated that this result should be clear on
the face of the regulation by including an amendment to 52.21(r)(4) to
indicate that Section 52.21(r)(4) is fulfilled by creating the Green
Group limit under these rules based on the assumption that the original
Section 52.21(r)(4) limit had never been accepted.  Two of the
commenters (0076.1, 0077.1) requested that EPA include a clarifying
sentence at the end of 52.21(dd)(1)(i)(c) that states: “Limits
accepted in previous permits to avoid imposition of major NSR are not
retained when the Green Group permit is issued.”

	One air agency (0094) stated EPA should reconcile the emission
limitations issued under (dd)(4)(i) with those of (dd)(4)(ii).  The
commenter stated that it is unclear from the discussion whether EPA
intends there to be a Green Group emission limit in addition to the BACT
emission limit.  The commenter stated that EPA should clarify that the
BACT emission limit should be determined consistent with the CAA
requirements for BACT.

Comments on Pollution Prevention (P2)

Comments Supporting Use of a P2 Approach, Rather Than a Common Air
Pollution Control Device:

	One air agency (0069.1) and five industry commenters (0071.1, 0073.1,
0076.1, 0077.1, 0084, 0096) supported EPA’s proposed authorization of
P2 as an alternative to required BACT/LAER controls, and expand option
by allowing a green group to be based exclusively on use of pollution
prevention, rather than a common air pollution control device.  One of
these industry commenters (0096) stated that the benefits to the
environment would be the same or greater with the P2 approach.  Another
of these industry commenters (0073.1) supported P2 as an optional
feature of a Green Group, but opposed it being mandated as a
pre-condition for approval of the use of any flexible permit, because
such a requirement could be incompatible with certain production
processes, and interfere with the approval of certain types of Green
Groups where environmental benefits and cost-savings are clear.  The
commenter added that EPA needs to clarify why P2 activities that never
use the common air pollution control device do not meet BACT or LAER and
cannot be approved as part of a Green Group.  The commenter stated that
such a provision would appear to reject P2 by itself for a group of
equipment that might use.

	One industry commenter (0073.1) though supporting EPA’s proposed
authorization of P2, objected to requiring the P2 related activities to
have ductwork extending to the common air pollution control device at
all times, even if it is being by-passed.  This seems to involve the
agency unnecessarily in engineering decisions and is not required when
there is little opportunity to evade BACT/LAER requirements.  P2 is
capable of being monitored and also is subject to semi-annual compliance
reports and semi-annual compliance certification requirements.  In
processes where emission equipment is “campaigned,” meaning it is
rearranged in a building or on a production line given a particular
product, it may be unnecessary or imprudent to always maintain a hard
connection to a pollution control device.  Therefore, the commenter
urged EPA to reconsider these limitations on Green Groups that rely in
whole or in part on P2.

Comments Opposing Use of a P2 Approach, Rather Than a Common Air
Pollution Control Device:

	One air agency (0087) and one industry commenter (0079) opposed EPA
permitting an assemblage of control techniques, P2, work practices, and
operational standards to supplant BACT.  The air agency (0087) stated
that such practices not represented in any past BACT determinations will
surely degrade such determinations and provide an insurmountable task in
determining under actual performance conditions if BACT is really BACT.
The commenter cannot agree with this approach and soundly recommended
EPA stick with the tried and true definition of BACT.  The industry
commenter (0079) stated the specification of certain types of products
preclude the use of P2 in order to meet applicable specifications and
CAA requirements.

	Three air agencies (0057, 0085.1, 0089) stated that P2 measures should
complement, not provide an alternative to, BACT and LAER controls.  One
air agency (0085.1) stated that the statutory definitions of BACT and
LAER do not allow indefinite replacement of air pollution control
technology with pollution prevention measures.

Other Comments on Use of a P2 Approach:

	Two air agencies (0057, 0069.1) stated that if P2 is to be authorized
for some periods of operation instead of requiring continuous operation
of the control device, this option should require two different BACT
analyses.  The first analysis would assume that all emissions are vented
to the control device with no reduction in emissions due to P2.  This
would ensure that by including P2 as part of a Green Group, a control
technology could not become economically infeasible because the
emissions that otherwise would be controlled by the device would no
longer be included in the economic analysis.  The second analysis should
demonstrate that the P2 option independently satisfies the requirement
for BACT.

Comments on an Aggregate Emissions Limit

	One industry commenter (0070.1) agreed with EPA that an aggregate limit
is appropriate for emissions activities that comprise the Green Group,
and that individual emissions activities that comprise the Green Group
should not have additional tons-per-year activity allocations.

	One air agency (0093.1) opposed EPA’s proposal that there be only an
aggregate emissions limit for a Green Group in lieu of individual
activity/process unit emission limits.  The commenter stated that an
aggregate emission limit that is based on the entirety of a future
project will not be adequate during interim periods where that project
may be implemented incrementally.  The commenter stated that a single
aggregate limit, based on the aggregate emissions of all future changes,
may create a relaxation of emission limits for existing activities,
especially during any interim period between approval and when
implementation of the first change triggers pre-approved BACT/LAER
requirements.  Existing emission limits for existing activities should
remain in effect until more stringent emission limits are in effect.
The commenter stated that allowable emissions for a Green Group should
reflect the timing of the addition or modification of emitting
activities.  Further, there may be cases where some emission discharge
limits should be applied to each individual activity unit discharge to
ensure proper and adequate performance of the common control device and
associated emission collection systems.  Permitting agencies should not
be constrained from enforcing activity/process unit-specific emission
limits in addition to aggregate Group emission limits where necessary.

Comments on the Annual Emissions Limit

Comments Supporting:

	Two industry commenters (0074.1, 0076.1, 0084) supported the proposal
that a source may seek to increase its Green Group annual limit,
provided that the BACT/LAER is revalidated and additional offsets to the
extent applicable are required.  The commenters stated that this should
not be require reissuing the major NSR permit; and the Green Group
permit should include standard language describing the procedures for
increasing the limit and how such re-validation of the technology
determination or assessment of necessary offsets would occur.

	One of these commenters (0084) suggested that this concept be contained
in proposed (dd)(12) as follows:

(12) Increasing a Green Group emission limit during its effective
period.  The Administrator may increase a Green Group emissions limit
during its effective period only if the increase is contained in a new
permit incorporating the increase into a new Green Group consistent with
the requirements of this section.  Alternatively, the applicant can opt
to terminate the Green Group while retaining appropriate emission limits
and other requirements and then subject the emissions of new project(s)
to the applicable NSR process.

	One industry commenter (0084) supported EPA’s second step in setting
the annual emissions limit for the Green Group, which involved the
calculation of an emissions increase from any new emissions activities
or planned changes to existing activities that are approved as part of
the permit emissions increase increment to address the planned changes
over a 10-year period.  The commenter also stated that the additional
amount of emissions added to the baseline should be consistent with
expected economic growth, even if specific new emissions activities
cannot be identified at the time of the Green Group permit application.

Comment on Short Term Emissions Limit:

	One industry commenter (0084) noted that the proposed regulatory text
could have the unintended effect of requiring permitting agencies to
establish a short-term emissions limit as part of the Green Group
program.  The commenter stated that in order to avoid potential
confusion over short-term emission limits, EPA should delete the
proposed (dd)(6)(iv) from the rule and simply rely on the permitting
agencies to add short-term emission limits if needed to satisfy their
obligations to prepare permits which meet the other aspects of the NA
NSR or PSD permitting regulations.

Comments on Individual Limits:

	Three industry commenters (0074.1, 0076.1, 0077.1) supported EPA’s
proposal that there should not be individual limits on emission points
within the Green Group emissions unit so that proposal retains its
flexibility goals.  One of these commenters (0076.1) stated that sources
will likely not be willing to invest the time and effort in obtaining a
Green Group permit if the overall limit is divided in a way that
constrains the operations of individual units.  However, if units must
be constrained so that shifting production needs cannot be accommodated,
companies will simply not enter into Green Group permits and continue to
operate under the traditional NSR program.

Comments on Emissions Limit Measurement:

One air agency (0069.1) stated the current proposal only allows Green
Groups where, in addition to the appropriate BACT/LAER limits, a given
group of activities is also subject to an overall emissions limit in
tons per year on a 12-month rolling basis.  The commenter requested that
EPA consider whether other types of limits could be allowed.  In some
cases, continuous direct measurement and/or calculations of emissions is
less reliable or significantly more burdensome than some other
enforceable operating parameter that could affectively limit the
emissions from a facility.  The commenter requested that EPA consider if
Green Groups could be established using production or operating limits
that effectively limit the total emissions from the Green Group.

	One air agency (0094) opposed dictating that the emission limit be
expressed in only tons per year.  The commenter stated that multiple
averaging times are involved in air quality analysis of pollutants even
if there is a common air pollution control device and a single emission
release point.

Comments on Advance Approvals

	One air agency (0093.1) stated that if a facility's forecasted
additions and modifications that receive advanced approval turn out to
be incorrect and the facility must seek changes to its Green Group
permit after several years, the permitting authority should have the
authority to update and apply a new BACT/LAER determination to ensure
that the advanced approval process is not abused.  The commenter also
stated that EPA must allow permitting agencies to require that the
BACT/LAER requirement be reevaluated, and modified as appropriate, if
the initial BACT/LAER technology has not been implemented within a
specified period after initial approval.  The commenter stated that this
would ensure that the emission reductions from existing activities that
were an anticipated benefit in exchange for the certainty of advanced
approval are realized within a reasonable time, and perhaps help to
avoid gaming of the Green Group approval process.

	One air agency (0090.2) stated that the "advance approval" process EPA
envisions as part of the green group proposal contravenes Washington
state law.  The commenter also stated that the “advance approval”
process is not needed.  The commenter stated that if a major source
wants to get a ‘prior approval’ for future projects, they can do so
through the phased project approval process already in the federal major
NSR programs and state minor NSR programs.  The commenter stated that
the main impediment to using the phased project approval process has
been that companies don’t want to commit to projects that are more
than 2 years in the future.  Finally, the commenter stated that nothing
in the Green Group proposal would make this future commitment aspect of
the phased project any more palatable except for the lack of a
re-evaluation of BACT for future phases.

Comments on Offsets

Three industry commenters (0071.1, 0074.1, 0084) recommended instead of
requiring that offsets be obtained by the time the first new or modified
source commences operation, EPA should provide that offsets will be
timely as long as they are obtained in sufficient quantities prior to
commencement of the operation that necessitates obtaining the offsets.
The commenters also stated that the source should have the option to
base the timing of the offsets on either (1) the actual changes within
the Green Group as they occur, or (2) each phase of construction before
its operation.

	One industry commenter (0073.1) stated that EPA should clarify that
offsets are not required unless the increase is “significant.”

	One industry commenter (0084) supported the added language in
establishing offsets for creditable decreases that occur with emission
activities within a Green Group.  However, the commenter stated that EPA
should allow facilities to use those creditable emission decreases from
the Green Group as offsets for other projects within the facility.  The
commenter stated that they are reductions that are surplus,
quantifiable, permanent, and enforceable from a practical standpoint,
and facilities installing air pollution control abatement or developing
P2 projects that produce creditable emission decreases should be allowed
incentives for using those offsets or credits for use with other
facility projects.  This, too, can provide flexibility in market
sensitive production units that have to respond quickly to global market
changes.

	One air agency (0093.1) stated that the EPA proposal to require
emission offsets at applicable regulatory offset ratios for all
increases of non-attainment pollutants above baseline actual emissions
for a Green Group could provide an incentive in non-attainment areas for
an operator to propose using the most effective air pollution control
technology feasible at the time of initial approval.  However, the
commenter noted that while the Supplementary Information of the EPA
Green Group proposal discusses this emissions offset requirement, it
does not appear to have been incorporated into the proposed revisions to
EPA's NSR regulations.

	One air agency (0093.1) stated that when offsets are initially provided
they must be sufficient to cover any remaining emission increases from
existing equipment after the required BACT/LAER adjustments in addition
to the emission increases associated with the first modification or
addition.  However, the commenter stated that the emissions offset
requirements described in the preamble do not appear to have been
carried out in the proposed amendments to regulation 40 CFR 51.165.

Other Comments on the Emission Limits of Green Groups

	One air agency (0069.1) noted that the proposed rule allows the removal
of (r)(4) limits on an emission unit if it is included in a Green Group
and it is treated as if construction had not yet commenced on it.  The
commenter stated that for this to be acceptable, all emission units that
were part of the source or modification that established the (r)(4)
limitation must be treated as if construction had not yet commenced and
not just the emission units that will be included in the Green Group.

	One air agency (0069.1) noted that the preamble states that a permit
establishing a Green Group must include a limit to ensure that BACT/LAER
technology is being employed and effective.  The commenter stated that
this is inconsistent with the requirement of 40 CFR 52.21(j) stating
that Green Groups should be subject to BACT which is an emissions limit
that may be based on a percent reduction, but percent reduction, in and
of itself, is not a substitute for a BACT emissions limit.  The
commenter stated that the requirements and types of limits to meet BACT
should be no different for Green Groups.

	One industry commenter (0084) stated that section 52.21(a)(2)(v) should
be corrected to 52.21(b)(2)(v).  The changes identified on page 52253 do
not indicate a change to 52.21(a)(2)(v).

Comments on the Monitoring, Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Testing (MRRT)
Requirements for Green Groups

Comments Opposing the Proposed MRRT Requirements for Green Groups:

Three industry commenters (0074.1, 0076.1, 0077.1) believe the proposed
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) requirements for Green
Groups go well beyond what is required to provide a reasonable assurance
of compliance.  The commenters believed the proposed rule’s MRR
provisions should be revised to provide more flexibility and to
eliminate redundancies with title V.  Two of these industry commenters
(0076.1, 0077.1) provided extensive suggestions on subparagraph (13),
and to a lesser extent, subparagraphs (14), (15), and (16) on how the
proposed rule’s monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions
should be revised (and substantially cut back) to provide more
flexibility and to eliminate redundancies with title V.  Another of
these industry commenters (0074.1) excerpted and provided suggested
edits to the MRR provisions of the proposal to try to make them more
consistent with general MRR requirements and with other programs as well
as to eliminate the many instances in which these provisions are
redundant with – and often slightly different from – title V
requirements.

One industry commenter (0074.1) stated that all of the MRR provisions in
the proposal should be deleted with the exception of a provision that
states that Green Group permits are subject to the same enforceability
standards for MRR that apply to all major NSR and PSD permits.
Similarly, another of these commenters (0077.1) recommended including a
general monitoring provision that simply requires the permit to be
practically enforceable.

Comments on Missing Data Requirements:

	Three industry commenters (0070.1, 0073.1, 0077.1) opposed EPA’s
proposed missing data procedures under section (dd)(13)(vii) which
provides that if monitors are not operating, the operator must report
maximum potential emissions.  Two of these commenters (0070.1, 0073.1)
claimed it is unreasonable to presume emissions of the maximum potential
emissions for any period where the primary monitoring data is not
available.  Both commenters also claimed this proposal is inconsistent
with the credible evidence rule, where credible evidence can and should
be used to determine emissions if a monitor malfunctions or a data gap
occurs.  One industry commenter (0073.1) urges EPA to remove
sub-subparagraph (dd)(13)(vii) because it is unreasonable, particularly
when instrumental monitors or human error, causes the missing data and
other emissions information is reliable and available.  Another industry
commenter (0070.1) stated that EPA's missing data requirements should be
revised, however, if EPA insists on maintain these requirements EPA will
be discouraging sources from considering Green Groups and devaluing the
environmental benefits that they should be encouraging.  The commenter
also stated that is no reason to penalize the source operator in the
event of a malfunction of a device, when even a well maintained
monitoring device will inevitably fail to operate.  Another industry
commenter (0077.1) stated the proposal provides the most extreme
approach possible for periods of missing data with no justification.
The commenter stated permitting authorities should have flexibility to
include appropriate ways to fill data gaps.  The commenter also stated
that the same should be true for Subsection (13)(viii)(A) which also
addresses gap-filling.

Other Comments on MRRT Requirements:

	One industry commenter (0084) supports reporting to be consistent with
the existing semiannual reporting provision of Part 70.  The commenter
encouraged permitting authorities to combine this semiannual report with
the 6-month monitoring report otherwise required under part 70 (see 40
CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A)).  The commenter stated that requiring
notification during the semi-annual report is a preferable alternative
than using separate reports as currently practiced in some states,
because it will potentially reduce the reporting burden for facilities
that are required to report.

	One industry commenter (0084) suggested that EPA make revisions to
(dd)(13)(ix) of the proposal for re-validation and allow permitting
authorities to waive the requirement on a permit-by-permit basis.

	The commenter suggested the following rule revisions for (dd)(13)(ix):

	(ix) Re-validation. The permitting authority shall establish a process
for revalidation of all data used to establish the Green Group pollutant
emissions.  This may involve performance testing or other scientifically
valid means approved by the Administrator.  The permitting authority may
also waive the requirement for re-validation on a permit by permit
basis.  All data used to establish the Green Group pollutant emissions
must be re-validated through performance testing or other scientifically
valid means approved by the Administrator.  Such testing must occur at
least once every 5 years after issuance of the Green Group.

One industry commenter (0070.1) the requirement to adjust emission
factors for uncertainty from Green Group monitoring requirements.  The
commenter stated that EPA should delete the Green Group monitoring
requirement for use of emission factors that states "[a]ll emissions
factors shall be adjusted, if appropriate, to account for the degree of
uncertainty or limitations in the factors' development;"  because it
will only confuse agencies, the public and the regulated community.  The
commenter stated that the only qualifier guiding the decision whether to
adjust factors – "if appropriate" – is too elastic to ensure any
consistency in its application among sources and among states.  In
addition, most permitting authorities do not possess the resources
necessary to determine whether or not a particular adjustment might be
appropriate.  The commenter also stated that it will result in an
immediate tightening of the Green Group cap unless it is clear that the
factor adjustment is to be applied to both the base actual emissions and
the compliance determinations.  The commenter also stated an artificial
inflation of the best available emissions factor will create intentional
over-reporting of emissions that will (1) be at odds with the goal of
creating accurate inventories; (2) be inconsistent with toxic release
inventory (TRI) and national emissions inventory (NEI) reporting; and
(3) make future NSR analyses inconsistent and inaccurate.  The commenter
stated that EPA's goal should be to improve general factors in AP-42,
when appropriate, and not to create two sets of books for emissions
tracking and reporting.  The commenter also stated that EPA should not
include rule language requiring the adjustment of all emission factors
without evaluating and addressing comments received on its Draft
Emission Factor Uncertainty Assessment.  The commenter also stated that
EPA fails to distinguish between EPA's AP-42 emission factors,
vendor-developed emission factors, or even factors that have been
developed using site-specific stack test data. EPA's requirement ignores
the quality of the emission factor and the fact that many facilities use
emission factors developed using site-specific data, which in the past
EPA has presumed is representative of site operations.

Comments on the Duration and Renewal of the Green Group Designations

Comments on Contemporaneity of Construction Requirements
[§§52.21(r)(2) & 52.1666(j)(4)]

Comments Supporting Eliminating Requirements:

	One air agency (0094) and six industry commenters (0071.1, 0072.1,
0075.1, 0082.1, 0083.1, 0096) supported EPA’s proposed elimination of
requirements designed to ensure that NSR permitting decisions would be
contemporaneous with the commencement of construction or modification of
a source or facility; specifically, EPA has proposed to eliminate the
provisions in 40 CFR 52.21(r)(2) that invalidate approvals to construct
if projects are not commenced within 18 months and 52.21(j)(4) and 40
CFR 51.166(j)(4), requiring BACT review and modification no later than
18 months before commencement of construction before each phase of the
project.  Two of these industry commenters (0072.1, 0083.1) stated these
requirements were intended by EPA to strike a balance between affording
a project with certainty as to the emission control requirements it must
meet going forward and assuring that those requirements are based on
up-to-date information requiring emission control capabilities and air
quality impacts.  However, the commenters stated that the “balance”
achieved by these requirements in fact unnecessarily constrains a source
and tips heavily against its ability to rely upon the certainty of a
permit even after the conditions in the permit are subject to lengthy
and detailed scrutiny and after the source agrees to the application of
highly efficient pollution control technology.  One industry commenter
(0072.1) stated that this not only makes economic sense, but also it
will not adversely affect the environment, at least for EGUs.  Another
industry commenter (0082.1) stated that the nature of advance approval
for a Green Group will require more upfront planning and the development
of more costly and more extensive controls that meet BACT.  The
commenter stated that these more extensive controls could lead to an
extended construction schedule; therefore, EPA is correct in allowing
Green Groups the flexibility to be exempt from these current
construction timeframes.  One air agency (0094), though supporting
excluding Green Groups from the 18-month construction requirement and
phased construction determinations, stated that EPA should explain how
to determine PSD increments for pollutants that have PSD increments
defined. Specifically, PSD increment consumption analyses depend on
actual emissions (typical 24-month operational period), so emissions
levels used by CAA-authorized agencies for the increment analysis should
be specified.

	One industry commenter (0072.1) believes an extended permit term –
which allows a source to preserve a preconstruction permit even if
construction is not commenced within 18 months after issuance of a
permit – makes good environmental and economic sense for all types of
affected facilities, including EGUs, even if those facilities do not opt
to take advantage of the proposed Green Group approach.

Comments Opposing Eliminating Requirements:

	Five air agencies (0065.1, 0080, 0087, 0089, 0092.1), one tribe
(0066.1), and one environmental group (0088) opposed EPA’s proposed
elimination of requirements designed to ensure that NSR permitting
decisions would be contemporaneous with the commencement of construction
or modification of a source or facility; specifically, EPA’s proposed
elimination of the provisions in 40 CFR 52.21(r)(2) that invalidate
approvals to construct if projects are not commenced within 18 months
and 52.21(j)(4) and 40 CFR 51.166(j)(4), requiring BACT review and
modification no later than 18 months before commencement of construction
before each phase of the project.  One of these air agencies (0065.1)
disagreed with this exemption, because BACT can and does progress over
time.  One air agency (0080.1) stated that existing PSD provisions,
which allow the permitting authority to extend an authorization beyond
an 18 month period on a case-by case basis, should be retained.  Another
of these air agencies (0087) stated that a Green Group under EPA’s
proposal may “tie-up” increment for 10-years (15 if the Green Group
term is extended).  One environmental group (0088) noted that
independently of them believing Green Groups are unlawful as a whole,
they argued that by eliminating these regulatory obligations for any
major NSR permitting activities, BACT and LAER determinations would grow
state, weaker, and therefore unlawful, as technology and emissions
limitations steadily improve over time.

	Another of these air agencies (0089) believes that excluding Green
Groups from these requirements and allowing construction to occur as
long as 10 or 15 years after permitting raises serious concerns:

As National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are revised, the
emissions locked in by Green Groups at the beginning of a 10-to 15-year
permit term could, when utilized, have far more serious negative
repercussions for air quality than could have originally been foreseen
at the time of permitting.

The commenter is concerned that no air quality modeling and analysis
would occur near the actual time of construction.

The public should have a right to comment on construction near the time
that it commences—taking into account contemporaneous air quality, as
well as factors relating to population, land use, and economic trends,

One air agency (0089) and two tribes (0066.1, 0078) were concerned that
by not mandating that BACT determinations be revisited if the unit is
not built within eighteen months of permit issuance, to account for new
technologies or updated pricing data, only the initial BACT analysis is
required for the term of the permit and increases in emissions are
allowed without violating NSR or the use of P2 as a surrogate for BACT,
leading to hoarding of increment allocations.  Similarly, two air
agencies (0085.1, 0087) were concerned that the Green Group proposal may
have the effect of reserving available increment in an area for a single
source that may never construct its proposed Green Group project(s),
thereby limiting growth options in the area.  One air agency (0087)
opposed approving changes at the source that are not clearly defined and
definite because they think sources may inflate the Green Group annual
limit with changes that they never intend to build.  The commenter
stated that allowing the addition of actual emissions from proposed
Green Group physical changes, etc. will permit wholesale skirting of
current NSR requirements.  The commenter is concerned that sources may
propose additions that are never installed to (a) insure sufficient
operating room under the Green Group emissions limit so as not to exceed
it, or (b) provide sufficient “slack” in the emissions limit to
absorb emissions from unknown equipment to be installed in the future.
In either case, increment is consumed or reserved so others cannot use
it and state air quality projections may prevent other worthy sources
from expanding operations.

Other Comments on Commencement of Construction Requirements:

One industry commenter (0072.1) encourages EPA to delete 40 CFR
52.21(r)(2) and (j)(4) and 51.166(j)(4) from the PSD regulations, for
the same reasons that it supports EPA’s proposal to remove Green
Groups from the 40 CFR  52.21(r)(2) and (j)(4) and 51.166(j)(4)
requirements.

Comments on Renewal of Green Groups

Comments Supporting:

	Two industry commenters (0076.1, 0077.1) agreed with EPA’s proposal
that if the permitting authority does not act on the renewal in a timely
manner, sources can continue to operate under the existing Green Group
permit if it has applied for renewal.

Comments Opposing:

One air agency (0065.1) disagreed with EPA’s proposal that a Green
Group remains in effect until the permitting authority acts on a renewal
application as long as the source has timely submitted a renewal
application.  The commenter explained that should a permit be extended
for more years, and potentially indefinitely, it would shield Green
Group modifications from a BACT/LAER evaluation for yet more years.  The
commenter believes the rule should provide that the Green Group
automatically terminates unless the permitting authority acts on the
renewal application within a reasonable time, such as one year.  The
commenter believes this situation is very different from the case of a
renewal of a title V permit, under which the “application shield”
protects the source from enforcement of the requirement to have a permit
as long as it has applied in a timely fashion, because the title V
permit has no effect on applicable requirements.

Comments on Application Deadline for Renewal:

Two industry commenters (0077.1, 0084) supported the proposed EPA’s
proposed application deadline for renewal of a Green Group in
(dd)(11)(ii).  One of these industry commenters (0084) believes that
this timing provides ample time for the permitting authority to review
and renew the Green Group designation.  The commenter added that EPA
could also rely on the language currently in Part 70 for a timely
renewal of an application for States that have the Green Group concept
in the Part 70 Operating Permit Program.

Other Comments on Renewal of Green Groups:

Two industry commenters (0076.1, 0077.1) believe that sources should
have the option to renew by providing simple revalidation of BACT or
LAER.  The commenters added that for agreeing to another 10-year cap,
the source should be able to describe new categories of changes to the
extent necessary for the coming 10-year permit term.

Comments on the Dividing Up Green Groups After Expiration

	Two air agencies (0069.1, 0094) opposed the ability of a source with an
expired Green Group to divide up the Green Group in to smaller emissions
units and to allocate the emissions limit correspondingly if such a
provision would allow some emission units to operate without control or
would allow the source to later demonstrate that the controls were no
longer economically feasible.  One of these commenters (0094) stated
that if sources want to divide into smaller emission units, they should
have to propose another Green Group, not simply separate emission units.

 	Five industry commenters (0071.1, 0074.1, 0075.1, 0076.1, 0077.1,
0096) requested that EPA revise the Green Group rules to provide that
when a permittee chooses to not renew a Green Group, it should have the
option to follow the requirements that are in the proposed rules, or it
can divide the Green Group into emissions activities or sub-groups of
those activities that comprise the Green Group, and allocate the Green
Group emissions limits to those activities or sub-groups of those
activities, provided that the individual emissions activities or
sub-groups of those activities meet BACT or LAER.  One of these industry
commenters (0096) stated that by authorizing the division of emissions
activities into more than one unit, EPA will assure that sources will
continue to have the same flexibility in terms of designation of
emissions activities as separate emissions units as previously existed
and, as a result, will not be penalized for having obtained the Green
Group permit.

Comments on the Duration for a Green Group Designation

Comments Supporting 10-year Effective Period:

	Two air agencies (0093.1, 0094), two industry commenters (0068.1,
0079), and two private citizens (0053, 0056), supported the proposed
10-year Green Group advanced permitting effective period.  One air
agency (0093.1), two industry commenters (0068.1, 0079), and one private
citizen (0053) agreed with EPA’s assertion that improvements in
technology do not occur within a 10-year period; control technology is
typically quite stable within a 15 year period and not likely that a
subsequent BACT/LAER determination at a Green Group will require a new
control device within a 15 year period.

	One of these air agencies (0093.1) stated that EPA should not consider
longer than 10 years, and should allow permitting agencies the
flexibility to prescribe shorter periods.  The commenter stated that few
industries will be able to reliably predict future facility changes 10
years in advance, fewer still 15 years in advance, except those with
very narrow product/process parameters and/or long permitting and
construction lead times. The commenter suggested that whatever maximum
period EPA ultimately incorporates, EPA should allow advanced approvals
over shorter time frames than the maximum to address cases where a
business cannot predict further ahead with reasonable confidence.
Another of these air agencies (0094) stated that a 15-year duration is
too long.  One of these industry commenters (0079) in the packaging
industry, noted that current “control” equipment such as oxidizers
typically are capable of emissions reductions in excess of 95%, so we
would point out that BACT/LAER for these sources cannot improve that
much in terms of pollution control efficiencies.  The commenter added
that the improvements that are seen in new control devices relate more
to more reliability and improved fuel efficiency than in increases in
oxidation efficiency.  One of these private citizens (0053) the
commenter believes the rule is already going far enough to offer
businesses operational flexibility and this aspect of the revisions
should err on the side of environmental caution.  Maintaining the
general 10-year duration offers a sufficient time period for a facility
to experience regulatory certainty and lessens administrative burdens on
permitting authorities.  Another of these private citizen (0056) stated
that though a 10-year duration would be most advantageous; in order to
address the concerns about the duration being too long, the ideal middle
ground would be for the agency to create a procedure by which it could
go back and redefine BACT within the Green Group title V permit when
certain conditions are met.  Another of these industry commenters
(0068.1) supported EPA’s proposal of 10 years as a minimum amount of
time for sources using emission control systems or low-emission design.
The commenter suggested creating a system that provided flexibility
commensurate with the degree of emission controls in place and amount of
time controls have been utilized, enabling technological advances to
catch up more quickly where the BACT/LAER is advancing from no add-on
controls to more advanced technologies.  The commenter explained that
the more the source has invested in technology to reduce emissions then
it should be entitled to longer periods of flexibility; likewise, if the
investment in technology is more recent, then the source should be
provided a longer period of flexibility.

Comments Opposing 10-year Effective Period:

	Two air agencies (0062.1, 0085.1), and three tribes (0061.1, 0066.1,
0078) believe that the proposed 10-year Green Group advanced permitting
effective period is too long.  Four of these commenters, including one
air agency (0085.1) and three tribes (0061.1, 0066.1, 0078) disagree
with EPA’s assertion that improvements in technology do not occur
within a 10-year period.  The commenters expressed that the advancement
of pollution control technologies occurs at a more rapid pace than
expressed in the EPA proposal.  One of these air agencies (0062.1)
stated that this is much too long a period of time for a source to
"hold" the rights to install a new source without contemporaneous
review.  Another of these air agencies (0085.1) stated that locking in
BACT or LAER for 10 years is likely to result in a reduction in
technologically advances, as there would be little incentive for
industry to continue to improve emissions control technology.  An
additional concern for the commenter was that there is no requirement in
the Proposed Rule for a contemporaneous air quality modeling analysis at
the time of actual construction of a proposed “Green Group” project.
 The commenter stated during the time between the establishment of the
“Green Group,” and actual construction of a proposed “Green
Group” project, there could be significant changes in air quality that
would be ignored under the Proposed Rule.  Finally, the commenter stated
that it appears that many other changes, some affecting other
environmental quality areas of interest, such as water quality or
wetlands, could occur within the 10-year “Green Group” Designation
period without undergoing an impact analysis or public scrutiny.  There
is no discussion in the preamble on how this type of situation would be
affected by the “Green Group” proposal.  Two tribes (0061.1, 0078)
stated that the duration of Green Group permits beyond 5 years offers
increasingly questionable environmental protection.  One tribe (0061.1)
noted that the six success stories of the US. EPA Flexible Permit
Implementation Review were all based on flexible permits approximately
five years in duration or less; the proposed lifespan of a Green Group
permit is two to three times the lifespan of the flexible permits
studied and used as the foundation of the proposed rule.  Another tribe
(0078) stated that it is impossible to extrapolate the accomplishments
or problems from these 5-year pilot projects to 10 or 15 year permits.

Comments Supporting 15-year Effective Period:

	Five industry commenters (0070.1, 0071.1, 0075.1, 0082.1, 0096), felt
the proposed 10-year Green Group advanced permitting effective period
was too short, and instead, supported EPA’s suggested duration of 15
years instead.  Five industry commenters (0070.1, 0071.1, 0075.1,
0082.1, 0096) agreed with EPA’s general statements that a reasonable
average equipment life is 15 years and that there is no data to suggest
that improvements in control technology occur in sufficient magnitude to
lead to different control technologies constituting BACT within 15 years
of the date a Green Group is issued.

Two industry commenters (0071.1, 0075.1) believe that a 15-year term is
more appropriate and that it is supportable.  The commenters believe
that 15 years represents a reasonable balance between the useful life of
air pollution control devices and the time frame in which a new BACT
determination would require additional emissions control.

One industry commenter (0070.1) noted that obtaining a Green Group
provision requires substantially more effort than obtaining a PAL.  The
commenter explained that since the lifetime of a given piece of control
equipment is at least 15 years, and the business payout of
pre-permitting and installing these best controls is speculative, thus,
EPA should allow for more time for sources to recoup the costs of these
newest controls.  The commenter believes that a 15-year period or longer
would make the Green Group option more attractive to sources, given the
complex decision-making, capital investment and long-term commitment of
personnel and other resources that will be required if a company elects
to participate.  Another of these industry commenters (0096) stated by
providing that the duration of a Green Group permit will be 15 years,
rather than 10 years, EPA would encourage significantly the use of the
Green Group authorization.  This would result not only in greater
flexibility for the Green Group permitted source, but also significant
emissions reductions.  If the duration is limited to 10 years, sources
are much less likely to take the necessary steps to obtain a Green Group
permit.  The commenter concluded a life shorter than 10 years would make
the Green Group concept of no value.

Comments Supporting Both 10-year and 15-year Effective Period:

	Seven industry commenters (0072.1, 0073.1, 0074.1, 0076.1, 0077.1,
0083.1, 0084), supported both the proposed 10-year and 15-year Green
Group advanced permitting effective period.  Six industry commenters
(0072.1, 0073.1, 0076.1, 0077.1, 0083.1, 0084) agree with EPA’s
general statements that a reasonable average equipment life is 15 years
and that there is no data to suggest that improvements in control
technology occur in sufficient magnitude to lead to different control
technologies constituting BACT within 15 years of the date a Green Group
is issued.

	Two industry commenters (0072.1, 0083.1) stated that once a technology
is broadly applied on a commercial basis and shown to operate
efficiently and reliably it is not likely that it will further evolve.
Thus, the commenters stated that allowing a permit to remain intact for
the proposed 10, or even 15 year, permit term is a reasonable and
flexible approach that will help eliminate some unnecessary
administrative burdens without compromising environmental
considerations.  Two industry commenters (0076.1, 0077.1) agree that the
environmental benefits EPA discusses of the Green Group approach would
be enhanced by a longer potential permit term for the Green Group.  The
commenters stated that sources would clearly have a greater incentive to
voluntarily enter the Green Group process with a longer period of
certainty for changes.  The commenters suggested one possible approach
would be to issue the rule with authority to allow a 15-year permit term
but also the authority to shorten the period to no less than 10 years if
there is evidence that control technology approaches are likely to
change in the future for the types of emission points included in the
Green Group.  One industry commenters (0073.1) stated a 15-year period
is justified because in contrast to PALs the overall controls are more
stringent and the unit has been subject to NSR impact analyses.  It also
would be helpful to make Green Group investments more viable, even if
the control decision was reviewed as a condition for continued operation
after 10 years.  The commenter believes that if companies can be assured
that they can obtain 10-15 year pre-approval for new equipment that will
be vented to these controls, then there will be a significant incentive
to install cleaner equipment sooner instead of avoiding modifications
all-together.  Another of these industry commenters (0074.1) suggested
EPA provide a 10-15 year period in the regulations with the 10-year term
as the minimum and the 15-year term being granted based on an assessment
by the permitting authority of historical advances in technology and
expected advances in the coming years for the pollutant and emissions
units in question.  The commenter added that EPA could also allow
permits to include a 5-year extension if no significant advances in
control technology have occurred during the first 7 years of the permit,
allowing the source to obtain the extension in year 8 or 9 of the permit
so it could evaluate in a timely manner whether it wished to seek
renewal.  The commenter stated that in order for companies to have an
incentive to enter into a Green Group permit and make the associated
investments in control technologies and administrative costs, a 10-year
period is the absolute minimum time frame that would allow this to
occur.  The commenter explained that if companies are given only 5
years, for example, to recoup the investment in obtaining the permit and
installing the controls before potential additional requirements could
apply, they will be unlikely to enter into such permits.  However, the
commenter added if the rules provided a 15-year term for such permits,
sources would be even more likely to enter into these permit
arrangements voluntarily, because the sources would be controlling
emissions from the entire group to the BACT or LAER level of control
even when a traditional NSR analysis might consider many of the changes
authorized by the permit to be minor NSR changes not requiring BACT or
LAER.  Finally, the commenter stated that because EPA is proposing that
the effective date be the date of issuance of the permit, a 15-year
period would help to make up for time that the source is in construction
rather than operation.  Moreover, the risk to the environment is
extremely low in these cases as well because BACT and LAER do not
increase in stringency at a rapid pace.  Another of these industry
commenters (0084) stated where the technology is aggressively changing
and improving, then the states should be allowed to evaluate whether the
BACT /LAER determinations are still effective for the Green Group for a
particular entity.  But, where the technology hasn’t changed as being
BACT/LAER, the commenter believes states should have the flexibility to
extend the Green Group reevaluation up to 15 years.  The commenter urges
EPA to provide flexibility in the final rule to allow the State
permitting authorities to use a range of 10 to 15 years for the Green
Group effective period; this would allow States to tailor the program to
best suit their needs.  The commenter stated at a minimum, the Green
Group life should be at least 10 years to be consistent with the
BACT/LAER determination.

Comments on the Advancement of Control Technology

Comments Supporting:

	Thirteen industry commenters (0068.1, 0070.1, 0071.1, 0072.1, 0073.1,
0075.1, 0076.1, 0077.1, 0079, 0082.1, 0083.1, 0084, 0096) and one
private citizen (0053) agreed with EPA’s assertion that control
technology is typically quite stable within a 15 year period and that it
is not likely that a subsequent BACT/LAER determination at a Green Group
will require a new control device within a 15 year period.  The
commenters expressed that once a technology is broadly applied on a
commercial basis and shown to operate efficiently and reliably it is not
likely that it will further evolve.  One of these industry commenters
(0073.1) submitted that there is little if any room for improvement in
oxidizer efficiencies since 1990, since such equipment is capable of
emissions reductions in excess of 95-98%.

Comments Opposing:

	Seven air agencies (0065.1, 0080.1, 0085.1, 0087, 0089, 0090.2, 0093.1)
and three tribes (0061.1, 0066.1, 0078) disagreed with EPA’s assertion
that improvements in technology do not occur within a 10-year period.
The commenters expressed that the advancement of pollution control
technologies occurs at a more rapid pace than expressed in the EPA
proposal.

Two air agencies (0085.1, 0089), one tribe (0078) stated that locking in
BACT or LAER for 10 years or longer is likely to result in a reduction
in technologically advances, because there would be little incentive to
continue to improve emissions control technology.  One air agency
(0065.1) provided evidence and data that contradicted EPA’s conclusion
that BACT/LAER does not advance over 10 years.  Similarly, one industry
commenter (0089) provided examples of many dramatic improvements in
control technology made within a 10-year time frame.  Another of these
air agencies (0080.1) believes stated that there is a corresponding
relationship between regulatory requirements and technology advances
that would likely be affected by a widespread 10- to 15-year freeze in
technology.  The commenter is concerned that no air quality modeling and
analysis would occur at the actual time of construction.  Another of
these air agencies (0087) believes that technological growth tends to be
stepwise rather than linear and that predicting when advances will be
made is still a “game of chance.”  The commenter also stated that
there is no restriction on issuing an NSR Green Group permit for an
existing assemblage of equipment ducted to a common BACT control device
still deemed to be BACT, of whatever age. This BACT then will be
10-years + old when the Green Group permit expires. There is no way
states intent on controlling the growth of local emissions can, in good
conscience, approve permits that may allow continued operation of
technologically “out-of-date” pollution control equipment; and what
of the impact of upwind states using the proposed rule’s procedure
whose “excess” pollution impacts downwind states through transport?
The Green Group permit should not be issued for a period in excess of
the standard title V permit – 5 years. After review by the permitting
authority, if the control apparatus is still considered to be viable,
the permit could be renewed for an appropriate period not to exceed
5-years.  Another of these air agencies (0089) stated that there is a
synergistic relationship between regulatory requirements and technology
advances that would likely be affected by a widespread 10- to 15-year
freeze in technology.  Another of these air agencies (0090.2) stated
that while control technology does not change over 10 year periods in
some states that are limited to implementing only what EPA requires,
other states like Washington, routinely see changes in control equipment
capability over periods of even a relatively few months because of our
requirement to install BACT.  Another of these air agencies (0093.1)
stated that EPA’s assertion doesn't consider that the applicability of
a BACT/LAER technology may change more significantly and rapidly based
on future cost-effectiveness considerations and demonstrations of
technical feasibility.

Other Comments on the Duration and Renewal of Green Group Designations

	Two industry commenters (0076.1, 0077.1) supported EPA’s proposal
that existing units can continue to operate under a Green Group permit
while the BACT or LAER technology is being installed to avoid disruption
of existing operations.  The commenters stated that without this
allowance, companies would be unlikely to enter into Green Group
permits.  If the permit requires the controls upon issuance, it could be
extremely disruptive to operations.

	Two air agencies (0085.1, 0089) are concerned that there is no
requirement in the proposed rule for a contemporaneous air quality
modeling analysis at the time of actual construction of a proposed
“Green Group” project.  The commenters are concerned that many
changes (including unanticipated changes in transported air pollution,
increases or decreases in mobile source emissions, or natural events,
such as wildfires) some affecting other environmental quality areas of
interest, such as water quality or wetlands, could occur within the
10-year “Green Group” Designation period without undergoing an
impact analysis or public scrutiny.

	One air agency (0064) noted that unlike a standard BACT/LAER
determination that could remain the same for the life of the emissions
units, the Green Group determination will last only for the length of
the permit approval.  The commenter stated that this would allow the
permitting authority to conduct a new BACT/LAER determination, with
possible further emissions reductions, when the source applies to renew
the Green Group permit.

	One air agency (0094) stated that the "discretionary reopenings" only
make sense if the Green Group emission units cannot be separated after
permit expiration.

Comments on the How Green Groups are Similar to PALs

Comments on whether a Green Group is a form of PAL:

	One air agency (0090.2), and four industry commenters (0073.1, 0075.1,
0079, 0084) believe that a Green Group is similar to PALs.  One industry
commenter (0073.1) stated that the two types of flexible permits are
related but they also differ in significant ways.  One air agency
commenter (0090.2) believes the PAL process available in the major NSR
programs already serves the same function as the proposed green group
permitting approach, and contains greater air quality protections than
proposed for the green groups.  The commenter also noted that no
Washington source has requested to use the PAL process in the past four
years, calling into question its utility.  One industry commenter
(0075.1) believes that since the Green Group rules are based on the PAL
rules, and since Green Groups, unlike PALs, must meet BACT or LAER, EPA
should revise the proposed Green Group rules to provide that in
determining a Green Group's emissions limit, the applicable PSD or
non-attainment significance level can be included as an emission limit
if it is higher than the amount of actual emissions consistent with the
growth approved for the Green Group.  The commenter requests that EPA
revise proposed 40 CFR 51.165(i)(6)(iii)(b), 51 .166(z)(6)(iii)(b), and
52.21(dd)(6)(iii)(b), as follows: "an additional amount of actual
emissions consistent with the growth approved for the Green Group , or
establish the limit at the applicable significance level for the Green
Group pollutant in [include "(a) (1)(x) ", (b)(23) ", (b)(23)" here,
depending on whether the quoted language is from Section 51.165, 51.166,
or 52.21, respectively] of this Section, whichever is larger".

	Two industry commenters (0073.1, 0079) stated that though the two types
of flexible permits are closely related, there is no question that a
Green Group is in fact more rigorous than a PAL.  The commenters
explained the Green Group not only prevents any significant increase in
a regulated air pollutant over 10 years, it also requires all units
designated as the Green Group to meet BACT/LAER requirements even after
expiration of the Green Unit.  One of these commenters (0073.1) stated
emission units under a PAL operate with lesser degrees of controls
although the PAL “cap” may drive the operator to install BACT or
LAER to maintain the cap or make room for additional equipment under the
PAL.  Similarly, one industry commenter (0073.1) stated that the two
types of flexible permits are related legally because they are both ways
of defining an “increase,” but they differ in significant ways.  The
commenter stated, first, existing and future emissions units that are
permitted under a Green Group are subject to major NSR review process
and all that it entails – including the various ambient air quality
impact and increment analysis, but, no such analysis is required for
approval of a PAL.  The commenter also stated, second, a Green Group is
in a sense “forever” in that the emission activities, once
designated as a “single emission unit,” remain subject to BACT/LAER
if the approval for the Green Group expires.  The commenter added that
renewal of the Green Group after 10 years requires a “new” NSR
review.  The commenter also stated Green Group meets state-of-the art
controls (BACT or LAER) and caps emission increases from the Green Group
to prevent “significant” emission increases, in contrast to the NSR
exclusion for a “Clean Unit,” which the federal appeals court found
violated the Clean Air Act by potentially allowing significant increases
in actual emissions without NSR review. State of New York v. EPA, supra.

	One industry commenter (0084) believes that the Green Group concept is
a logical extension of the PAL concept as it allows a smaller grouping
of sources to be treated as a single source for federal NSR purposes.

Comments on whether the Green Group is a permissible application of the
PAL principles as applied to a logical collection of emissions
activities that are ducted to a common control device:

	One industry commenter (0084) agreed that Green Groups can be a
permissible application of the PAL principles as applied to a logical
collection of emissions activities that are ducted to a common control
device.  The commenter stated that this is a common practice, and
recommends the approach outlined below regarding the level of increase
in emissions for existing emissions activities and/or increases for new
emissions activities that can be authorized to occur under a major NSR
permit:

EPA’s proposal for Green Groups only considers emission sources being
directed to one pollution abatement source.  The commenter does agree
that the Green Group is a practical extension of the PAL concept. It
should be considered to be more similar to PAL, such as a partial site
PAL or similar equipment PALs, i.e. combustion sources, storage tanks,
and/or fugitive emission programs.

Since the Green Group consists of multiple emission activities being
controlled as BACT/LAER, the emission control device sources should be
considered in the NSR review.  Any increase above the potential to emit
of the control device and above the significance level for the pollutant
would require NSR review.

One industry commenter (0084), stated whether the emission activities
are new or existing would not matter for a PAL or Green Group that are
ducted to a common pollution control device.  The commenter stated Green
Groups only consider emission sources being directed to one pollution
abatement source.  The commenter supported expanding the definition from
just new activities.

	One air agency (0094) supported EPA's extension of the PAL principles
to Green Groups, with the caveat that it is only appropriate for VOC
emissions at this time.  The commenter stated that VOC emissions have no
PSD increments and have considerably less air quality analysis than
other pollutants, which make them ideal for this type of permitting, as
demonstrated by EPA's pilot permit program.

Comments on the Legal Rationale for Green Groups

Comments on Green Groups Being Illegal:

	Four air agencies (0080.1, 0085.1, 0089, 0090.2), one environmental
group (0088), and two tribes (0066.1, 0078) believe that Green Groups
provisions would be unlawful under New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 38-40
(D.C. Cir. 2005) and CAA.  The commenters stated that in New York, the
D.C. Circuit vacated EPA’s “Clean Unit” regulations, which
authorized sources that had undergone BACT/LAER to undertake changes
that significantly increased actual emissions without going through NSR.
 The court held that the plain meaning of Section 111(a)(4) of the Act
requires that sources that undertake changes that increase actual
emissions to obtain an NSR permit.  The commenters noted that a facility
having a Green Group would be allowed to increase actual emissions
without NSR requirements nine years after the initial installation of
BACT.  The commenters believe that there is no meaningful legal
distinction between the “Green Group” and “Clean Unit”
provisions, and that the Green Group provision is contrary to the CAA.
One of these air agencies (0089) disagreed with EPA’s legal rationale
that states Green Groups are based on the premise that the changes and
emissions activities that occur within a Green Group are specifically
authorized to occur as a result of undergoing, not avoiding, Major NSR.
One environmental group (0088) provided extensive comments on how the
legal rationale for Green Groups is the same as the Clean Unit
provision.

	One air agency (0065.1) does not believe that the Green Group program
may lawfully be applied in an “extreme” ozone nonattainment area,
because the CAA defines as NSR “modification” any change resulting
in an emissions increase from “any discrete operation, unit, or other
pollutant emitting activity.”  The commenter recognized that EPA’s
Green Group proposal states that all the activities included in the
Green Group are to be considered as one “unit” for NSR purposes.
However, the commenter does not believe that EPA can simply adopt a
regulation that appears to fly in the face of the CAA definition.  The
commenter gave an example on the South Coast Air Basin, which is
currently classified as “severe-17”, California has requested EPA to
“bump-up” the Basin to “extreme” status.  Therefore, once the
request is granted, the Green Group program could no longer be applied
for ozone precursors such as VOCs and NOx in our area.

	One air agency (0089) stated that the provisions in the proposal for P2
may also be problematic in nonattainment areas, Green Group
permitting—and increases in emissions without NSR—are likely to
result in violations of the antibacksliding provisions of the Act.

	One environmental group (0088) provided extensive comments on numerous
other ways that the Green Groups exemption violates the Act, by
contravening the inherently technology-forcing and contemporaneous air
quality concerns of major NSR.

Comments on Green Groups Being Legal:

	Four industry commenters (0074.1, 0076.1, 0077.1, 0096) stated that the
Green Group concept is consistent with the CAA, particularly the D.C.
Circuit’s decision in New York v. EPA.  The commenters stated that in
New York, the Court of Appeals upheld EPA’s NSR improvement rules in
particular with respect to the calculation of baseline actual emissions
using a 10-year lookback period and for PALs.  In upholding the PAL
provisions of the 2002 NSR improvement rules, the Court emphasized the
importance of both the 10-year lookback period and 10-year term of the
PAL, stating that “EPA has ‘discretion, within reason, to define
which changes are substantially contemporaneous’ and noting that a PAL
term of 10 years was permissible because of EPA’s determination that 5
“years would not provide ‘a sufficient period of regulatory
certainty’” to induce sources to expend the “initial commitment of
substantial resources” necessary to establish a PAL. The Court also
found it was permissible for the Agency to provide an appropriate time
of regulatory certainty and a sufficient period of time for planning
long-term capital improvements.  The Court further recognized that
individual increases resulting from changes that do not reach
significant levels do not trigger NSR and that with the PAL such
increases would “count toward source-wide emissions and can trigger
NSR if they exceed the PAL level.”  The commenters stated that the
EPA’s proposed approach for Green Groups fits squarely within the
Court’s analysis and affirmation of both the 10-year lookback period
and the PAL regulations in New York.  Specifically, the Green Group
approach would set the annual emissions level using a baseline of the
preceding 10 years.  Like the PAL approach, the Green Group would impose
an annual cap on emissions and would pre-authorize a range of changes
within that cap.  The commenters explained that while the cap imposed
under the Green Group differs from the PAL approach, it is clearly
within EPA’s discretion because the Green Group includes the added
requirement that the Green Group units obtain a major NSR/PSD permit.
Thus, even though the Green Group comprises less than the entire plant
and authorizes emission increases above baseline more than significant
levels, it does so in the context of the units undergoing new source
review.  Finally, the commenters stated that under the Green Group
approach, the permitting authority will make its determinations
regarding control technology, offsets where required, and air quality
impacts for the “proposed facility” and the “proposed permit”.
This is entirely consistent with the statutory and existing regulatory
provisions and of course, makes sense in that there is always a time lag
between the issuance of a permit, the completion of construction, and
the initiation of operation as constructed or modified.  The Green Group
merely formalizes a process and safeguards for NSR permits that span an
admittedly longer period of time than traditional NSR permits have
covered.  One industry commenter (0077.1) stated that the Green Group
proposal is clearly distinguishable from the Clean Unit provisions that
the New York Court invalidated.  The commenter stated that the
difference is the Clean Unit provisions relied on a definition of
increase that was based on allowable rather than actual emissions.  For
Green Groups, EPA is using an actual emissions baseline to calculate the
limit and is applying the actual controls determined to be BACT or LAER
to determine the permissible emission levels.  Thus, the Green Group
approach is based on actual, not allowable, emissions and the emission
limit reflects actual operating levels proposed by the source.  This
construct is consistent with longstanding Agency practice in issuing NSR
permits.  Moreover, in this proposal, the changes that are anticipated
will be described and specifically permitted with a growth allowance.  A
BACT/LAER and appropriate air quality analysis will also be conducted.
Another of these industry commenters (0096) stated that the Green Group
authorization is a straightforward implementation of the Act's
requirements.  When EPA or a state permitting authority issues a Green
Group permit, it will review planned emissions increases and other
changes and make a judgment regarding the controls that must be imposed
to satisfy the BACT or LAER technology requirement.  In addition, the
commenter stated in the case of nonattainment NSR permits, appropriate
offsets will be required, therefore, EPA does not run afoul of the D.C.
Circuit's ruling that emissions increase determinations must be based on
actual emissions not allowable emissions.

	One industry commenter (0074.1) stated that EPA clearly has the legal
discretion to authorize a Green Group for 10 years, since like a PAL, no
emission increases are allowed to occur from the Green Group over this
period.

	One industry commenter (0073.1) agreed that EPA has the legal authority
to modify the provision of the NSR requirements that limit phased
construction projects at 51.166(r)(2) and 52.21(r)(2).  The commenter
cited that such discretion is evident in the 1978 original regulations
themselves, which already allow the Administrator to use his or her
discretion to approve construction extensions for another 18 month
period, beyond the initial 18 month permit construction period without
additional BACT/LAER review (or further rulemaking). Such extensions are
routinely granted by both EPA and the states.  There also have been
instances when periods exceeding five years and up to 10 years have been
approved by permit authorities, including EPA regional permit engineers.
 To the extent that approved Green Groups provide for pre-approval and
installation immediately for existing and future activities in the Green
Group, the policy purpose for constraining construction projects to an
18 month period disappears because the BACT/LAER investment and
installation on new and existing equipment designated in the Green Group
is undertaken immediately.  In fact, if no further construction were to
be undertaken, despite its pre-approval under the Green Group, emission
reductions will in fact be optimized.

Miscellaneous Comments

Comment:

One industry commenter (0070.1) supported EPA’s effort, but encouraged
EPA to provide additional approaches to accelerate the permit amendment
process and to construct flexible permit terms.

Response:

	Development of such policy is outside scope of this rulemaking which
focuses on design of FAPs, not processes to establish them.  However,
see the appendix to this document where commenters describe lean
permitting and other approaches that states are currently using which
have significantly reduced processing times.

Comment:

One industry commenter (0073.1) stated that EPA acknowledges that all of
the elements of the proposed FAP rules are available under current law.
Therefore, the commenter indicated that EPA should affirm in the final
agency action on this proposal that these elements are available under
current law and affirm that approved flexible permits are not subject to
additional requirements that are being finalized.

Response:

	Because this rulemaking does not include substantive new requirements,
nothing in this action would require existing FAPs that meet current
requirements to be revisited.

Comment:

	One air agency (0094) stated that the proposed approaches can be
beneficial if limited to the pollutant for which local air quality
analysis is not performed, namely VOCs.  The commenter pointed out that
pilot permits and associated environmental improvements discussed in the
proposal preamble deal almost exclusively with VOCs as the major
pollutant.  The commenter recommended that EPA should seriously consider
limiting the rulemaking to VOCs, and when permitting authorities gain
more experience with other pollutants, then it may be appropriate to
expand the flexible permitting for additional pollutants.