Federal Register Vol. 83, No.86,

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0214 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0214.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document.

• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0214 in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

On August 11, 2017, the NRC announced that the agency is initiating, beginning in the fall of the calendar year 2017, a retrospective review of its administrative regulations to identify those rules that are outdated or duplicative. Once identified, the regulations will be evaluated to determine whether they can be eliminated without impacting the agency's mission. The retrospective review supports the NRC's ongoing regulatory planning and retrospective analysis of existing regulations (ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A441).

On November 22, 2017, the NRC staff issued SECY-17-0119, “Retrospective Review of Administrative Regulations” (ADAMS Accession No. ML17286A069), which provided for Commission approval the NRC staff's proposed strategy for the retrospective review of regulations. The staff requirements memorandum associated with SECY-17-0119 approved the NRC staff's proposal and directed staff to implement the strategy. Overall, the goal of the retrospective review is to enhance the management and administration of regulatory activities and to ensure that the agency's regulations remain current and effective. The review is intended to identify regulatory changes that are administrative in nature that will make the information submittal, record keeping, and reporting processes more efficient for the staff, applicants, and licensees. The strategy takes into consideration the agency's overall statutory responsibilities, including mandates to issue new regulations, the number of regulations in chapter I of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and available resources. This effort will not impact the NRC's mission, as it will be limited to identifying outdated or duplicative, non-substantive administrative regulations.

This notice provides an outline of the NRC's approved strategy for the retrospective review (see Table 1) and requests public comment on the criteria the NRC proposes to use to evaluate potential changes to the requirements. In summary, the retrospective review strategy involves seven steps—(1) developing criteria to evaluate potential regulatory changes to administrative requirements; (2) gathering NRC staff input on administrative regulations that might fit the proposed criteria; (3) reviewing historical correspondence documents submitted to the NRC related to eliminating duplicative or outdated administrative regulations; (4) including opportunities for public comment; (5) interacting with the public throughout the review process by conducting public meetings; (6) reviewing stakeholder input; and (7) developing rules or rulemaking plans to eliminate or modify administrative requirements, as appropriate.

Public input will be critical to identifying potential changes to administrative requirements as well as to provide data on the benefits and costs of existing NRC administrative regulations. The NRC will conduct two public meetings to discuss the retrospective review process and recommendations. In addition, the NRC will seek input from the NRC's existing committees (the Committee to Review Generic Requirements, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes), other Federal agencies, State and local governments, Federally-recognized Tribes, and non-governmental organizations. All input that the NRC receives will be used to inform the retrospective review recommendations.

For the purpose of this review, administrative regulations are those that impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements or address areas of agency organization, procedure, or practice. Consistent with Step 1 of the strategy, the NRC developed the draft criteria and goals listed below to evaluate potential regulatory changes of this nature. The evaluation criteria would serve as factors of consideration to guide the staff's decisionmaking. The staff is not proposing to use the criteria to make stand-alone determinations. Instead, the criteria will be weighed against other activities outlined in the strategy, such as staff programmatic experience and, comments received, and the correspondence review. Draft criteria 1-3 are intended to “screen-in” regulations for inquiry for potential elimination or modification, as they address whether a regulation is outdated or duplicative. These screening-in criteria are not intended to be mutually exclusive. A given regulation may satisfy one or more of the criteria. Draft criterion 4 is intended to “screen-out” regulations from further inquiry or for potential elimination or modification so as to avoid unintended consequences. Specific points about which the NRC seeks public comment are described in the Section IV, “Specific Questions,” of this document.

1. Routine and periodic recordkeeping and reporting requirements, such as directives to submit recurring reports, which the NRC has not consulted or referenced in programmatic operations or policy development in the last 3 years.

The goal of this criterion is to identify outdated requirements for information collection.

2. Reports or records that contain information reasonably accessible to the agency from alternative resources or routine reporting requirements where less frequent reporting would meet programmatic needs.

The goal of this criterion is to identify duplicative information or overused collection requirements.

3. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements that result in significant burden. For example, more than $100,000 overall per potential regulatory change; or over 1,000 reporting hours for each affected individual or entity over a 3-year period; or 10 hours for each affected individual or entity each calendar year or per application.

The goal of this criterion is to ensure that elimination or modification of outdated or duplicative recordkeeping and reporting requirements could result in appreciable reductions in burden for the NRC, licensees, or both. The criterion is not intended to be used as a stand-alone consideration, but rather as a tool to ensure that the retrospective review is focused on efforts that will in fact result in a reduction in burden.

4. Reports or records that contain information used by other Federal agencies, State and local governments, or Federally-recognized Tribes will be eliminated from the review.

The goal of this criterion is to decrease the potential for unintended consequences. For example, the NRC collects certain information on behalf of other government agencies. It is not the intent of this effort to change that practice.

The NRC is providing an opportunity for the public to submit information and comments on the criteria that the NRC proposes to use to identify administrative requirements for potential modification or elimination. You may suggest other criteria; please provide supporting rationale for any alternative criteria you recommend that the NRC use in conducting its review. The NRC is particularly interested in gathering input in the following areas:

1. Do the proposed evaluation criteria serve the purposes described in this notice? Why or why not?

2. The NRC is considering whether the burden reduction minimum is appropriate. Is “significant burden” the appropriate measure? Are the examples given for Criterion 3 appropriate or useful? Should the NRC use different bases for measuring “significant burden,” and if so, what are these measures and how would they result in a more accurate or complete measurement of burden?

3. The NRC is considering multiple thresholds for different classes of regulated entities, as a single threshold might not be useful to identify burden reductions for all licensee types. What is the appropriate threshold for your entity class (e.g., operating reactor, industrial radiographer, fuel cycle facility)?

4. Are there other evaluation criteria the NRC should consider using in its retrospective review of administrative regulations? What are those criteria and why?

Public input will be critical to identifying potential regulatory changes as well as to provide data on the benefits and costs of existing NRC regulations. The NRC will conduct two public meetings to discuss the Retrospective Review process and recommendations.

The NRC will publish a notice of the location, time, and agenda of any meetings in the Federal Register, on www.Regulations.gov, and on the NRC's public meeting website at least 10 calendar days before the meeting. Stakeholders should monitor the NRC's public meeting website for information about the public meeting at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm.

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0361; Product Identifier 2017-NM-160-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this NPRM.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0215, dated October 24, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -253N, and -271N airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0361.

This NPRM would not supersede AD 2015-05-02 or AD 2015-22-08. Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This NPRM would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate the new maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then terminate all requirements of AD 2015-05-02 and AD 2015-22-08.

Airbus has issued Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1 Safe Life Airworthiness Limitations (SL-ALI), Revision 05, Issue 02, dated April 19, 2017. This service information describes new maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (j)(1) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the ALS inspection tasks, corrective actions must be accomplished in accordance with Airbus maintenance documentation. However, this proposed AD does not include that requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We consider those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this proposed AD.

The FAA recently became aware of an issue related to the applicability of ADs that require incorporation of an ALS revision into an operator's maintenance or inspection program.

Typically, when these types of ADs are issued by civil aviation authorities of other countries, they apply to all airplanes covered under an identified type certificate (TC). The corresponding FAA AD typically retains applicability to all of those airplanes.

In addition, U.S. operators must operate their airplanes in an airworthy condition, in accordance with 14 CFR 91.7(a). Included in this obligation is the requirement to perform any maintenance or inspections specified in the ALS, and in accordance with the ALS as specified in 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c), unless an alternative has been approved by the FAA.

When a type certificate is issued for a type design, the specific ALS, including revisions, is a part of that type design, as specified in 14 CFR 21.31(c).

The sum effect of these operational and maintenance requirements is an obligation to comply with the ALS defined in the type design referenced in the manufacturer's conformity statement. This obligation may introduce a conflict with an AD that requires a specific ALS revision if new airplanes are delivered with a later revision as part of their type design.

To address this conflict, the FAA has approved alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) that allow operators to incorporate the most recent ALS revision into their maintenance/inspection programs, in lieu of the ALS revision required by the AD. This eliminates the conflict and enables the operator to comply with both the AD and the type design.

However, compliance with AMOCs is normally optional, and we recently became aware that some operators choose to retain the AD-mandated ALS revision in their fleet-wide maintenance/inspection programs, including those for new airplanes delivered with later ALS revisions, to help standardize the maintenance of the fleet. To ensure that operators comply with the applicable ALS revision for newly delivered airplanes containing a later revision than that specified in an AD, we plan to limit the applicability of ADs that mandate ALS revisions to those airplanes that are subject to an earlier revision of the ALS, either as part of the type design or as mandated by an earlier AD. This proposed AD therefore would apply to Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -253N, and -271N airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness that was issued on or before the date of approval of the ALS revision identified in this proposed AD. Operators of airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after that date must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,250 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Gustavus Airport, Gustavus, AK, to accommodate airspace redesign in support of IFR operations at the airport.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-2018-0127; Airspace Docket No. 18-AAL-7) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number).

Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0127; Airspace Docket No. 18-AAL-7.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays, at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198-6547.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Gustavus Airport, Gustavus, AK. The airspace would be redesigned to a polygon approximately 12 miles wide extending to approximately 7 miles northwest and 31 miles southeast of the airport (from 4 miles each side of the 229° bearing of the airport extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 16.7 miles southwest of the airport, and within 3 miles northeast and 7 miles southwest of the airport 135° bearing extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 24 miles southeast of the airport). This airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Memphis International Airport, Memphis, TN to support IFR operations at the airport.

Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0754; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-16.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface within an 8-mile radius of Memphis International Airport, Memphis, TN. The segment extending from the 8-mile radius of the airport to 16 miles west of the Elvis NDB would be removed due to the decommissioning of the Elvis NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

Also, this action would remove the language that excludes the Millington, TN, airspace area to comply with FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

Additionally, the airspace listed in the legal description for Olive Branch Airport, Olive Branch, MS, would be removed and redesignated in a separate rulemaking.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

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

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class D airspace, remove Class E airspace, and establish Class E airspace at Olive Branch Airport, Olive Branch, MS, to support IFR operations at the airport.

Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0866; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-20.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending Class D airspace to a 4.1-mile radius, (from a 4-mile radius) at Olive Branch Airport, Olive Branch, MS, and removing Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D, due to the decommissioning of the Olive Branch NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach. Also, this action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Olive Branch Airport, Olive Branch, MS, (this airspace was removed from the Memphis, TN, airspace in a separate rulemaking.

Additionally, this action would make an editorial change to the Class D airspace legal description replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement.

Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

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

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace to support IFR operations in the Knoxville, TN, area.

Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-1214; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-24.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E surface airspace within a 4.5-mile radius of Knoxville Downtown Island Airport, Knoxville, TN, to exclude a 1.0-mile radius around University of Tennessee Medical Center Heliport. The University of Tennessee Medical Center Heliport requires this 1.0- mile cutout below 700 feet from the surface to allow helicopters to depart the heliport without an IFR clearance.

Also, the BENFI NDB has been decommissioned, requiring airspace reconfiguration of Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at McGhee Tyson Airport, Knoxville, TN.

Additionally, the geographic coordinates of the Knoxville Downtown Island Airport, McGhee Tyson Airport, and Gatlinburg-Pigeon Forge Airport would be adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 201B, and effective September 15, 201B, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

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

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Ambient or outdoor air can contain a variety of pollutants, including particulate matter (PM). Airborne PM can be comprised of either solid or liquid particles, or a complex mixture of particles in both solid and liquid form. The most common airborne PM constituents include sulfate (SO4); nitrate (NO3); ammonium; elemental carbon; organic mass; and inorganic material, referred to as “crustal” material, which can include metals, dust, soil and other trace elements. PM2.5 includes “primary” particles, which are directly emitted into the air by a variety of sources, and “secondary” particles, that are formed in the atmosphere as a result of reactions between precursor pollutants (e.g., SO4 and NO3 from emissions of mobile and stationary sources of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur dioxide combining with ammonia).

The human health effects associated with long- or short-term exposure to PM2.5 are significant and include premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits) and development of chronic respiratory disease. Welfare effects associated with elevated PM2.5 levels include visibility impairment, effects on sensitive ecosystems, materials damage and soiling, and climatic and radiative processes.

On December 14, 2012, EPA promulgated a revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS to provide increased protection of public health from fine particle pollution (the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS). 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). In that action, EPA strengthened the primary annual PM2.5 standard, lowering the level from 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 12.0 mg/m3. The 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of the annual arithmetic mean monitored values does not exceed 12.0 mg/m3. See 40 CFR 50.18.

On January 15, 2015 (80 FR 2206), EPA published area designations, as required by CAA section 107(d)(1), for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Through that designations action, EPA identified as “nonattainment” those areas that were then violating the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on quality-assured, certified air quality monitoring data from 2011 to 2013 and those areas that contributed to a violation of the NAAQS in a nearby area. In that action, EPA designated the Delaware County and Lebanon County nonattainment areas as moderate nonattainment for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, effective April 15, 2015. See 40 CFR 81.339. Pennsylvania's Delaware County and the Lebanon County nonattainment areas are each comprised of a single county. Under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA, Pennsylvania is required to submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources (point, nonpoint, nonroad, and onroad) of the relevant pollutants, in each nonattainment area. EPA's “Provisions for Implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS” (or PM implementation rule), at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z, sets criteria for which pollutants are to be included by states in the required base year emission inventory. This inventory must include direct PM2.5 emissions, separately reported PM2.5 filterable and condensable emissions, and emissions of the PM2.5 precursors. 40 CFR 51.1008.

On May 5, 2017, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a formal SIP revision consisting of the 2011 base year emissions inventory for the Delaware County nonattainment area for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On September 25, 2017, PADEP submitted a formal revision consisting of the 2011 base year emission inventory for the Lebanon County nonattainment area for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

PADEP selected 2011 as its base year for SIP planning purposes, per EPA's PM implementation rule, at 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1)(i), which requires that the base year inventory year shall be one of the 3 years for which monitored data were used for designations or another technically appropriate inventory year if justified by the state in the plan submission. EPA's nonattainment designations for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS were made for both the Delaware County and Lebanon County nonattainment areas based on monitoring data from 2011-2013 and thus included 2011. Furthermore, 2011 was the most recent and complete inventory for which emissions could be derived from the 2011 National Emission Inventory Version 2 (NEI v2). PADEP's 2011 base year inventories for both areas include emissions estimates covering the stationary point, area (nonpoint), nonroad mobile, onroad mobile, and source categories.

EPA's PM2.5 implementation rule requires the base year emissions inventory to include direct PM2.5 emissions, as well as separately reported PM2.5 filterable and condensable emissions, and emissions of the scientific PM2.5 precursors. 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1)(iv). In its 2011 base year inventory SIP submittals for the Delaware and Lebanon County nonattainment areas, PADEP reported actual annual emissions of directly-emitted PM2.5 emissions (PM2.5 PRI), as well as separately reported PM2.5 filterable and condensable particulate matter (PM CON) emissions. PM CON is matter that exists as a vapor at stack conditions, but becomes a solid or liquid once it exits the stack and is cooled by ambient air. PADEP's base year inventories for these areas also include directly-emitted, primary particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10 PRI), emissions precursors that contribute to secondary formation of PM2.5, including sulfur dioxides (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH3) emissions.

Table 1 summarizes the 2011 emission inventory by source sector for each pollutant or pollutant precursor for the Delaware County 2012 annual PM2.5 nonattainment area, expressed as annual emissions in tons per year (tpy).

Table 2 summarizes the 2011 emission inventory by source sector for each pollutant or pollutant precursor for the Lebanon County 2012 annual PM2.5 nonattainment area, expressed as annual emissions in tons per year.

Stationary point sources are large, stationary, and identifiable sources of emissions that release pollutants into the atmosphere. PADEP extracted data for PM2.5 source emissions from the 2011 NEI v2, which receives input from each state's annual inventory estimates. For the Delaware County nonattainment area, major sources of PM2.5 emissions and precursors have historically been refineries, electric power plants, and pulp and paper mills. For the Lebanon County nonattainment area, the major sources include an electric power plant and a mineral processing facility.

Area sources are stationary, nonpoint sources that are too small and numerous to be inventoried individually. Area sources are inventoried at the county level and aggregated with like categories. Area sources are typically estimated by multiplying an emission factor by some collective activity for each source category, such as population or employment data. PADEP accounted for control efficiency, rule effectiveness, and rule penetration in its area source calculations, where possible. PADEP's SIP submittals for the Delaware County and Lebanon County nonattainment areas each lists these area source emissions by source category in an appendix to the SIP.

Onroad sources of emissions include motor vehicles, such as cars, trucks, and buses, which are operated on public roadways. PADEP modelled onroad emissions using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model, version MOVES2014, coupled with vehicle miles of travel activity levels. PADEP reports these onroad emissions estimates in an appendix of each area's SIP submittal by pollutant and by highway source category.

Nonroad sources are mobile, internal combustion sources other than highway motor vehicles, including, but not limited to, lawn and garden equipment, recreational vehicles, construction and agricultural equipment, and industrial equipment. However, emissions from locomotives, commercial marine vessels, and aircraft are included with the point and area source sectors. Nonroad mobile source emissions from different source categories are calculated using various methodologies, primarily by use of EPA's MOVES NONROAD emissions model or from EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM). PADEP reports its nonroad emissions in an appendix to each area's base year SIP submittal.

EPA reviewed Pennsylvania's 2011 base year emission inventory submissions including results, procedures, and methodologies for the Delaware County and Lebanon County nonattainment areas and found them to be acceptable and approvable under sections 110 and 172(c)(3) of the CAA. EPA prepared a Technical Support Document (TSD) for each of the Delaware County and Lebanon County nonattainment areas in support of this rulemaking. These TSDs are available online at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0423.

EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's SIP revision dated May 5, 2017 for the base year emission inventory for the Delaware County 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment area and Pennsylvania's SIP revision dated September 25, 2017 for the base year emission inventory for the Lebanon County 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment area. EPA is proposing to approve the base year emission inventories for these areas because the inventories for PM2.5 and its precursors were prepared in accordance with the applicable requirements of sections 110 and 172(c)(3) of the CAA and its implementing regulations including 40 CFR 51.1008. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. EPA is taking a single rulemaking action proposing to approve both of these SIP submittals, which were submitted separately, as they address the same emission inventory requirement for two different moderate 2012 annual PM2.5 nonattainment areas in the same state. However, if EPA receives adverse comment on the proposed approval affecting only one of these SIP revisions, EPA reserves the right to take separate final action on the remaining SIP revision if relevant comments are not received on that SIP revision.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule to approve the base year emission inventory SIP revisions for the Delaware County and Lebanon County nonattainment areas under the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to submit regional haze SIPs that contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal at Class 1 areas, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate BART as determined by the state. Under the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), adopted in 1999, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for such “BART-eligible” sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area.1 Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART.2 EPA provided states with this flexibility in the 1999 RHR, and further refined the criteria for assessing whether an alternative program provides for greater reasonable progress in two subsequent rulemakings.3

EPA demonstrated that CAIR would achieve greater reasonable progress than BART in revisions to the RHR made in 2005.4 In those revisions, EPA amended its regulations to provide that states participating in the CAIR cap-and-trade programs pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or states that remain subject to a CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) need not require affected BART-eligible electric generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX). As a result of EPA's determination that CAIR was “better-than-BART,” a number of states in the CAIR region, including Missouri, relied on the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as an alternative to BART for EGU emissions of SO2 and NOX in designing their regional haze SIPs. These states also relied on CAIR as an element of a long-term strategy (LTS) for achieving reasonable progress. However, in 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) remanded CAIR to EPA, which it did without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR.5 On August 8, 2011, acting on the DC Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR and issued FIPs to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject states.6 Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR program.

Due to the DC Circuit's 2008 ruling that CAIR was “fatally flawed” and its resulting status as a temporary measure following that ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze SIPs to the extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the EGU BART requirement. On these grounds, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of Missouri's regional haze SIP on June 7, 2012, triggering the requirement for EPA to promulgate a FIP unless Missouri submitted, and EPA approved, a SIP revision that corrected the deficiency.7 EPA finalized a limited approval of Missouri's regional haze SIP on June 26, 2012, as meeting the remaining applicable regional haze requirements set forth in the CAA and the RHR.8

In the June 7, 2012 limited disapproval action, EPA also amended the RHR to provide that participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR trading program for a given pollutant—either a CSAPR federal trading program implemented through a CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state trading program implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision—qualifies as a BART alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant.9 10 Since EPA promulgated this amendment, numerous states covered by CSAPR have come to rely on the provision through either SIPs or FIPs.11

Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the DC Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of CAIR.12 The DC Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded to the DC Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the high court's ruling.13 On remand, the DC Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the CSAPR budgets as to a number of states.14 The remanded budgets include the Phase 2 SO2 emissions budgets for Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas and the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for eleven states. This litigation ultimately delayed implementation of CSAPR for three years, from January 1, 2012, when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs were originally scheduled to replace the CAIR cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 2015. Thus, the rule's Phase 2 budgets that were originally promulgated to begin on January 1, 2014, began on January 1, 2017.

On November 10, 2016, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) explaining the Agency's belief that the potentially material changes to the scope of CSAPR coverage resulting from the DC Circuit's remand will be limited to the withdrawal of the FIP provisions providing SO2 and annual NOX budgets for Texas and ozone-season NOX budgets for Florida. This is due, in part, to EPA's approval of the portion of Alabama's October 26, 2015, SIP submittal adopting Phase 2 annual NOX and SO2 budgets equivalent to the Federally-developed budgets and to commitments from Georgia and South Carolina to submit SIP revisions adopting Phase 2 annual NOX and SO2 budgets equal to or more stringent than the Federally-developed budgets.15 Since publication of the NPRM, Georgia and South Carolina have submitted these SIP revisions to EPA.16 In the NPRM, EPA also proposed to determine that the limited changes to the scope of CSAPR coverage do not alter EPA's conclusion that CSAPR remains “better-than-BART”; that is, that participation in CSAPR remains available as an alternative to BART for EGUs covered by the trading programs on a pollutant-specific basis. On September 21, 2017, Administrator Pruitt signed the final action, “Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter: Revision of Federal Implementation Plan Requirements for Texas.” In this action, the agency removed Texas from CSAPR and affirmed the continued validity of the Agency's 2012 determination that participation in CSAPR meets the Regional Haze Rule's criteria for an alternative to the application of source-specific BART.

On July 31, 2017, the State of Missouri submitted a letter to EPA clarifying that the state had intended its Five-year Progress Report to revise its regional haze SIP to rely on its participation in the CSAPR trading programs for NOX and SO2 to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX and SO2 from electric generating units, pursuant to the option provided in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) (the “CSAPR-better-than-BART” provision). This letter has been added to the docket for this action and to the docket for the original action approving the Five-year progress report (EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0581).

EPA was not aware, at the time it approved Missouri's Five-year Progress Report, that the state intended that submission to also serve as a SIP revision substituting reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). With this understanding, we are now proposing to take an additional action on Missouri's Five-year Progress Report and to approve that submission, in conjunction with the clarification letter, as satisfying the SO2 and NOX requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for EGUs formerly subject to CAIR. If EPA finalizes this proposal, we would also convert the limited approval/limited disapproval of Missouri's regional haze plan to a full approval.

By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years (or less, if the Administrator so prescribes) after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions, which are made for satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP elements such as for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly established or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for the infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may vary depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the state, as well as the provisions already contained in the state's implementation plan at the time at which the state develops and submits the submission for a new or revised NAAQS.

Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly referred to as “prongs,” that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state (prong 3) or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in another state (prong 4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.

Through this action, EPA is proposing to approve the prong 4 portion of Missouri's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. All other applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. A brief background regarding the NAAQS relevant to this proposal is provided below. For comprehensive information on these NAAQS, please refer to the Federal Register notices cited in the following subsections.

On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations.17 States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2, 2013. Missouri submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on July 08, 2013. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.18

On January 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 ppb, based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations.19 States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013. Missouri submitted infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS on April 30, 2013. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of those submissions.20

On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3).21 States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14, 2015. Missouri submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on October 14, 2015. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.22

On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million.23 States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than March 12, 2011. Missouri submitted an infrastructure SIP for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS on July 8, 2013. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.24

The prong 4 requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a state's implementation plan to contain provisions prohibiting sources in that state from emitting pollutants in amounts that interfere with any other state's efforts to protect visibility under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). On September 13, 2013, the EPA issued Guidance on the Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) (“2013 Guidance”).25 EPA developed this document to provide states with guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS. The 2013 Guidance states that the prong 4 requirements are satisfied by an approved SIP provision that EPA has found to adequately address any contribution of that state's sources that impacts the visibility program requirements in other states. The 2013 Guidance also states that EPA interprets this prong to be pollutant-specific, such that the infrastructure SIP submission need only address the potential for interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies.

The 2013 Guidance lays out how a state's infrastructure SIP may satisfy prong 4. One way that a state can meet the requirements is via confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that the state has an approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 specifically require that a state participating in a regional planning process include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process. A fully approved regional haze SIP will ensure that emissions from sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not interfering with measures required to be included in other air agencies' plans to protect visibility.

Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed regional haze RPGs for mandatory Class I areas in other states.

Each of Missouri's infrastructure SIP submittals (2008 8-hour Ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012 annual PM2.5) relied on the State having a fully approved regional haze SIP to satisfy its prong 4 requirements. However, at the time of those submittals, EPA had not fully approved Missouri's regional haze SIP, as the Agency issued a limited disapproval of the State's original regional haze plan on June 7, 2012. As detailed earlier in this notice, EPA is proposing to convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of Missouri's regional haze plan to a full approval because final approval of Missouri's intended SIP revision relying on CSAPR pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) would correct the deficiencies that led to EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of the State's regional haze SIP. Because a state may satisfy prong 4 requirements through a fully approved regional haze SIP, EPA is therefore also proposing to approve the prong 4 portion of Missouri's 2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, 2012 annual PM2.5, and 2008 8-hour Ozone infrastructure SIP submissions.

As described above, EPA is proposing to take the following actions: (1) Approve the portion of Missouri's September 5, 2014 Five-year Progress Report for the State of Missouri Regional Haze Plan which, as clarified by the July 31, 2017 letter, identified the state's change from reliance on CAIR to a reliance on the CSAPR FIP for certain regional haze requirements; (2) convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of Missouri's regional haze plan to a full approval; and (3) approve the state's infrastructure SIP submissions addressing the CAA prong 4 requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

The revision and addition reads as follows:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.

In 2008 we revised the 8-hour ozone primary and secondary NAAQS to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) or 75 parts per billion (ppb) to provide increased protection of public health and the environment (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008). The 2008 ozone NAAQS revised the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm. The DFW area was classified as a “Moderate” ozone nonattainment area (NAA) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and initially given an attainment date of no later than December 31, 2018 (77 FR 30088 and 77 FR 30160, May 21, 2012). The DFW Moderate ozone NAA for the 2008 ozone standard consists of Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant and Wise counties (DFW NAA).

On December 23, 2014, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision rejecting, among other things, our attainment deadlines for the 2008 ozone nonattainment areas, finding that we did not have statutory authority under the CAA to extend those deadlines to the end of the calendar year. NRDC v. EPA, 777 F.3d 456, 464-69 (DC Cir. 2014). Consistent with the Court's decision to vacate that portion of the rule, we modified the attainment deadlines for all nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and set the attainment deadline for all 2008 Moderate ozone nonattainment areas, including the DFW NAA as July 20, 2018 (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015).

On July 10, 2015, Texas submitted a SIP revision for the DFW NAA based on an attainment date of December 31, 2018. Because that date was vacated by the Court, Texas had to further revise its SIP to address an attainment date of July 20, 2018 which it submitted on August 5, 2016.1 The portion of the July 10, 2015 SIP submittal that was not impacted by the Court's decision was the contingency measures plan portion as Texas was able to address the July 20, 2018 attainment deadline for this portion of the plan. Because the State revised and replaced the other portions of the 2015 SIP that were impacted by the Court's decision, with the August 5, 2016 submittal, the remainder of the 2015 submittal is superseded by the August 5, 2016 submittal. See the docket for copies of these submittals.

The August 5, 2016 submittal is designed to demonstrate attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date of July 20, 2018 and relies, in part, on a variety of controls on minor and major stationary sources and controls on mobile source emissions, achieved through a combination of Federal, State and Local measures. These measures are projected to reduce emissions of NOX and VOC in the DFW NAA.2 The measures that have been relied on in this demonstration have been approved in prior Federal Register (FR) actions, as noted below. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ or the State) used photochemical modeling and other corroborative evidence to predict the improvement in ozone levels that will occur due to these controls while accounting for growth in the DFW NAA.

Per the requirements in our final rule titled “Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements; Final Rule,” 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015), SIP Requirements Rule (SRR), an area classified as Moderate under 40 CFR 51.1103(a)—in this case is the DFW NAA—shall be subject to the requirements applicable for that classification under CAA section 182(b).3 For each nonattainment area, under 40 CFR 51.1108, the state must provide for implementation of all control measures needed for attainment no later than the beginning of the attainment year ozone season. Consistent with CAA section 182(b), each state in which a Moderate Area is located shall, with respect to the Moderate Area, submit plan provisions for RFP, RACM, RACT, an emissions inventory, an emissions statement, motor vehicle I/M, a NNSR program with the classification's general offset requirements, and control measures needed to provide for attainment by the applicable attainment deadline.4

The attainment demonstration requirements for the 2008 ozone standard can be found in 40 CFR 51.1108 (Modeling and attainment demonstration requirements) and 40 CFR 51.112 (Demonstration of adequacy); these requirements are described fully in the Technical Support Documents (TSD), provided in the docket for this proposed action.

In general, an ozone attainment demonstration includes a photochemical modeling analysis and other evidence (referred to as “Weight of Evidence”) (WOE) showing how an area will achieve the standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the attainment date specified for its classification.

Below we discuss the statutory and regulatory requirements that prescribe our review of the State's attainment demonstration, the elements in the State's submittal, and our evaluation of those elements comprising the attainment demonstration SIP. As stated above, we previously approved several of the State's nonattainment area plan requirements. We are evaluating the attainment demonstration and its associated MVEBs, RACM, and contingency measures plan in the event of failure to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date in this action.

EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.1108(c) specifically require that areas classified as moderate and above submit a modeled attainment demonstration based on a photochemical grid modeling evaluation or any other analytical method determined by the Administrator to be at least as effective as photochemical modeling. Section 51.1108(c) also requires each attainment demonstration to be consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 51.112, including Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 (i.e., “EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models,” 70 FR 68218, November 9, 2005 and 82 FR 5182, January 17, 2017). See also EPA's “Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Air Quality Goals in Attainment Demonstrations for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,” April 2007 and “Draft Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,” December 2014 (hereafter referred to as “EPA's 2007 A.D. guidance” and “EPA's 2014 Draft A.D. guidance”), which describe criteria that an air quality model and its application should meet to qualify for use in an 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration. For the detailed review of modeling and the WOE analyses and EPA's analysis of the DFW 8-hour Ozone attainment demonstration see the “Modeling and Other Analyses Attainment Demonstration” (MOAAD) Technical Support Document (TSD). The MOAAD TSD also includes a complete list of applicable modeling guidance documents. These guidance documents provide the overall framework for the components of an attainment demonstration, how the modeling and other analyses should be conducted, and overall guidance on the technical analyses for attainment demonstrations.

As with any predictive tool, there are inherent uncertainties associated with photochemical modeling. EPA's guidance recognizes these uncertainties and provides approaches for considering other analytical evidence to help assess whether attainment of the NAAQS is demonstrated. This process is called a WOE determination. EPA's modeling guidance (updated in 1996, 1999, and 2002) discusses various WOE approaches. EPA's modeling guidance has been further updated in 2005, 2007 and a Draft in 2014 for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration procedures to include a WOE analysis as a part of any attainment demonstration. This guidance recommends that all attainment demonstrations include supplemental analyses beyond the recommended modeling. These supplemental analyses would provide additional information such as data analyses, and emissions and air quality trends, which would help strengthen the overall conclusion drawn from the photochemical modeling. EPA's Guidance for 1997 8-hour ozone SIPs recommended that a WOE analysis be included as part of any attainment demonstration SIP where the modeling results predict Future Design Values (FDVs) ranging from 82 to less than 88 ppb (EPA's 2005 and 2007 A.D. Guidance documents).5 EPA's recent 2014 Draft A.D. Guidance removed the specific range and indicated that WOE should be analyzed when the results of the modeling attainment test are close to the standard. EPA's interpretation of the Act to allow a WOE analysis has been upheld. See 1000 Friends of Maryland v. Browner, 265 F. 3d 216 (4th Cir. 2001) and BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003).

TCEQ submitted the DFW attainment demonstration SIP with photochemical modeling and a WOE analyses on August 5, 2016. The results of the photochemical modeling and WOE analyses are discussed below.

Photochemical grid modeling is the state-of-the-art method for predicting the effectiveness of control strategies in reducing ozone levels. The models use a three-dimensional grid to represent conditions in the area of interest. TCEQ chose to use the Comprehensive Air Model with Extensions (CAMx), Version 6.20 photochemical model for this attainment demonstration SIP. The model is based on well-established treatments of advection, diffusion, deposition, and chemistry. TCEQ has used the CAMx model in other SIPs and EPA has approved many SIPs using CAMx based modeling analyses. 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W indicates that photochemical grid models should be used for ozone SIPs and lists a number of factors to be considered in selecting a photochemical grid model to utilize. EPA has reviewed the TCEQ's reasons for selecting CAMx and EPA agrees with the choice by TCEQ to utilize CAMx for this SIP.

In this case, TCEQ has developed a modeling grid system that consists of three nested grids. The outer grid stretches from west of California to east of Maine and parts of the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and from parts of southern Canada in the north to and much of Mexico to the south extending to near the Yucatan Peninsula on the southern edge. The model uses nested grid cells of 36 km on the outer portions, 12 km for most of the Region 6 states (most of New Mexico and all of Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas) and 4-kilometer grid cells for much of Texas (not including West Texas and the Panhandle) and portions of nearby States. The 4-kilometer grid cells include the DFW Nonattainment Area. For more information on the modeling domain, see the MOAAD TSD. The model simulates the movement of air and emissions into and out of the three-dimensional grid cells (advection and dispersion); mixes pollutants upward and downward among layers; injects new emissions from sources such as point, area, mobile (both on-road and nonroad), and biogenic into each cell; and uses chemical reaction equations to calculate ozone concentrations based on the concentration of ozone precursors and incoming solar radiation within each cell. Air quality planners choose historical time period(s) (episode(s)) of high ozone levels to apply the model. Running the model requires large amounts of data inputs regarding the emissions and meteorological conditions during an episode.

Modeling to duplicate conditions during an historical time period is referred to as the base case modeling and is used to verify that the model system can predict historical ozone levels with an acceptable degree of accuracy. It requires the development of a base case inventory, which represents the emissions during the time period for the meteorology that is being modeled. These emissions are used for model performance evaluations. Texas modeled much of the 2006 ozone season (May 31-July 2 and August 13-September 15), so the base case emissions and meteorology are for 2006. If the model can adequately replicate the measured ozone levels in the base case and responds adequately to diagnostic tests, it can then be used to project the response of future ozone levels to proposed emission control strategies.

TCEQ chose to use recent versions of Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF) version 3.2 for the meteorological modeling, Emission Processing System (EPS) version 3 for the emission processing, and CAMx version 6.20 for the photochemical grid modeling. WRF is considered a state of the science meteorological model and its use is acceptable in accordance with 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W Section 5. The combination of EPS for emissions processing and CAMx for photochemical modeling constitutes one of the two predominant modeling platforms used for SIP level modeling. These models and versions that TCEQ used are acceptable and in accordance with 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W Section 5.

Texas chose to model much of the 2006 ozone season which included a number of historical episodes with monitored exceedances. The 2006 ozone season was a period when multiple exceedance days occurred with a good representation of the variety of meteorological conditions that lead to ozone exceedances in the DFW NAA. Texas chose to model May 31-July 2, 2006 and August 13-September 15, 2006. In addition, Texas conducted the TexAQS II air quality field study in Houston, Dallas, and throughout the eastern half of Texas during 2006 providing additional data that was helpful in modeling and accessing model performance for these periods for the DFW A.D.

We evaluated Texas' 2006 episode selection for consistency with our modeling guidance (2007, and Draft 2014 versions). Among the items that we considered were the ozone levels during the selected period compared to the design value 6 (DV) at the time; how the meteorological conditions during the proposed episode match with the conceptual model of ozone exceedances that drive the area's DV; were enough days modeled; and was the time period selected robust enough to represent the area's problem for evaluating future control strategies. EPA's guidance indicates that all of these items should be considered when evaluating available episodes and selecting episodes to be modeled. EPA believes that the two 2006 periods (May 31-July 2 and August 13-September 15) are acceptable time periods for use in TCEQ's development of the 8-hour ozone attainment plan. We note that this is an older episode but it is one of the few years with a significant number of exceedances compared to most other years in the 2006-2012 period that were available when Texas started the modeling effort for this SIP in the 2012/2013 timeframe. The only other potential period we had previously identified with Texas was the 2012 ozone season, which TCEQ did investigate but they were not able to get acceptable base case model performance in time for use in this SIP revision in the meteorological and ozone modeling for this 2012 episode in the DFW area at the time this SIP was being developed. The 2006 period also had the unique benefit of additional field data collected as part of TexAQS II. EPA guidance suggests that having the extra field data is advantageous. In light of all this information, EPA concurs with this episode being adequate. See the MOAAD TSD for further discussion and analysis.

Model performance is a term used to describe how well the model predicts the meteorological and ozone levels in an historical episode. EPA has developed various diagnostic, statistical and graphical analyses that TCEQ has performed to evaluate the model's performance to determine if the model is working adequately to test control strategies. TCEQ performed many analyses of both interim model runs and the final base case model run and deemed the model's performance adequate for control strategy development. As described below, we agree that the TCEQ's model performance is adequate.

From 2012 to 2016, several iterations of the modeling were performed by TCEQ incorporating various improvements to the meteorological modeling, the 2006 base case emissions inventory, and other model parameters. TCEQ shared model performance analyses with EPA and EPA provided input. This data included analysis of meteorological outputs compared to benchmark statistical parameters that TCEQ previously developed as target values that are being used in many areas of the country. TCEQ also shared graphical analyses of the meteorology with EPA. In addition, TCEQ shared extensive analyses of the photochemical modeling for several base case modeling runs with EPA.

EPA has reviewed the above information and is satisfied that the meteorological modeling was meeting most of the statistical benchmarks, and was transporting air masses in the appropriate locations for most of the days.7 EPA also conducted a review of the model's performance in predicting ozone and ozone precursors and found that performance was within the recommended 1-hour ozone statistics for most days. We evaluate 1-hour time series and metrics as this information has less averaging/smoothing than the 8-hour analyses and results in a higher resolution for evaluating if the modeling is getting the rise and fall of ozone in a similar manner as the monitoring data. We also evaluated the 8-hour statistics, results of diagnostic and sensitivity tests, and multiple graphical analyses and determined that overall the ozone performance was acceptable for Texas to move forward with future year modeling and development of an attainment demonstration.

EPA does not expect any modeling to necessarily be able to meet all the EPA model performance goals, but relies on a holistic approach to determine if the modeling is meeting enough of the goals, the time series are close enough and diagnostic/sensitivity modeling indicates the modeling is performing well enough to be used for assessing changes in emissions for the model attainment test.8 EPA agrees that the overall base case model performance is acceptable, but notes that even with the refinements, the modeling still tends to have some bias performance concerns on the higher ozone days with some of the days being over predicted and some under predicted. The modeling also tended to have a slight overprediction bias for the Kaufman monitor which is usually upwind of the DFW area and more representative of background ozone entering the DFW area. See the MOAAD TSD for further analysis.

Before using the modeling for attainment test and potential control strategy evaluation, TCEQ reviewed the base case emission inventory, and made minor adjustments to the inventory to account for things that would not be expected to occur again or that were not normal (examples: Inclusion of EGUs that were not operating due to temporary shutdown during the base case period but were expected to be operating in 2017, adjusting the hour specific EGUs CEM based NOX emissions to a typical Ozone season day emission rate). This adjusted emission inventory is called the 2006 baseline emission inventory. The photochemical model was then executed again to obtain a 2006 baseline model projection.

Since DFW is classified as a moderate NAA, the attainment deadline is as expeditiously as practicable but no later than July 20, 2018. To meet this date, it is necessary for emission reductions to be in place by no later than what is termed the attainment year, which in this case is 2017. Future case modeling using the base case meteorology and estimated 2017 emissions is conducted to estimate future ozone levels factoring in the impact of economic growth in the region and State and Federal emission controls.

EPA guidance recommends that the attainment test use the modeling analysis in a relative sense instead of an absolute sense. To predict future ozone levels, we estimate a value that we refer to as the Future Design Value (FDV). First, we need to calculate a Base Design Value (BDV) from the available monitoring data. The BDV is calculated for each monitor that was operating in the base period by averaging the three DVs that include the base year (2006). The DVs for 2004-2006, 2005-2007, and 2006-2008 are averaged to result in a center-weighted BDV for each monitor.

To estimate the FDV, a value is also calculated for each monitor that is called the Relative Response Factor (RRF) using a ratio of baseline and future modeling results around each monitor. This calculation yields the RRF for that monitor. The RRF is then multiplied by the Base Design Value (BDV) for each monitor to yield the FDV for that monitor. The modeled values for each monitor may be calculated to hundredths of a ppb, then truncated to an integer (in ppb) as the final step in the calculation as recommended by EPA's guidance. The truncated values are included in the tables in this action. TCEQ employed EPA's recommended approach for calculating FDV's. For information on how the FDV is calculated refer to the MOAAD TSD.

The 2014 Draft A.D. Guidance indicates that instead of using all days above the standard (75 ppb) in the baseline, that the subset of 10 highest baseline days at each monitor should be used for calculating an RRF.9 The 10 highest days are the 10 highest 8-hour maximum daily values at each specific monitor. TCEQ provided the 2017 FDV values for each of the monitors using both procedures (2007 A.D Guidance and 2014 Draft A.D. Guidance).

EPA has reviewed the components of TCEQ's photochemical modeling demonstration and finds the analysis meets 40 CFR part 51, including 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W—Guideline on Air Quality Models. For a more complete description of the details of the base case modeling inputs, set-up, settings, the meteorology and photochemical model performance analysis (and EPA's evaluation of these procedures and conclusions), see the MOAAD TSD in the Docket for this action (EPA-RO6-OAR-2016-0476).

The results of modeling the 2017 future baseline modeling run are shown in Table 1. In Table 1, the model FDV calculations using both EPA's 2007 A.D. Guidance method calculation and the more recent 2014 Draft A.D. Guidance calculation method are shown. We have calculated the FDVs in the following tables using the final truncated numbers in accordance with EPA guidance. EPA's more recent 2014 Draft A.D. Guidance to use just the top 10 (highest) 8-hour days from the 2006 baseline modeling instead of all days is a result of previous ozone analyses that EPA reviewed and determined that the older 2007 A.D. Guidance method can include too many days when modeling an area that can have many exceedances and can result in underestimating actual FDVs. Using the top 10 days shifts the focus of the attainment test to the highest and typically hardest days at each monitor. EPA's 2014 Draft A.D. Guidance has not been finalized as the guidance also covers PM2.5 and Regional Haze and EPA has delayed finalization while changes in the Regional Haze Rules and guidance have been under review. We have evaluated both approaches in the DFW modeling and are focusing on the 2014 Draft A.D. modeling results because we find it represents a more appropriate analysis of the attainment test. For example, the 2007 A.D. Guidance method results in 34 modeled days being used in the attainment test for the Denton monitor which includes a number of days where overall ozone was predicted to exceed in the 2006 baseline but was not predicted to exceed in the 2017 modeling analysis. As a result, this older guidance appears to include a number of days that are not predicted to be high ozone or exceedance days in 2017 but are still included in calculating an RRF and a FDV for the monitor. EPA's full analysis for this DFW modeling, of the two FDV calculations, and our results/conclusions for all the monitors is included in the MOAAD TSD. Table 1 includes the modeling projections prior to evaluating any other modeling sensitivity runs.

The second column is the Base DV for the 2006 period. Using the 2007 A.D. guidance 15 of the 19 DFW area monitors are in attainment, one has a FDV of 76 ppb and 3 monitors have a FDV of 77 ppb. Using the 2014 Draft A.D. Guidance all but two of the monitors are attainment. Two are projected to be near attainment with a FDV of 76 ppb. The two monitors over 76 ppb have modeled values of 76.55 and 76.26 at Eagle Mountain Lake and Denton Monitors and are 0.56 and 0.27 ppb from attainment values.10

The standard attainment test is applied only at monitor locations. The 2007 A.D. Guidance and the 2014 Draft A.D. Guidance both recommend that areas within or near nonattainment counties but not adjacent to monitoring locations be evaluated in an unmonitored areas (UMA) analysis to demonstrate that these UMAs are expected to reach attainment by the required future year. The UMA analysis is intended to identify any areas not near a monitoring location that are at risk of not meeting the NAAQS by the attainment date. EPA provided the Modeled Attainment Test Software (MATS) to conduct UMA analyses, but has not specifically recommended in EPA's guidance documents that the only way of performing the UMA analysis is by using the MATS software. EPA has allowed states to develop alternative techniques that may be appropriate for their areas or situations.

TCEQ used their own UMA analysis (called the TCEQ Attainment Test for Unmonitored areas or TATU). EPA previously reviewed TATU during our review of the modeling protocol for the HGB area (2010 Attainment Demonstration SIP) and we are proposing approval of the use of TATU's tool and its Unmonitored Area analysis as acceptable for meeting the recommended evaluation of ozone levels in the Unmonitored Area analysis for this SIP approval action (See MOAAD TSD for review and evaluation details). The TATU is integrated into the TCEQ's model post-processing stream and MATS requires that modeled concentrations be exported to a personal computer-based platform, thus it would be more time consuming for TCEQ to use MATS for the UMA. Based on past analysis, results between TATU and MATS are similar and EPA's guidance (2007 and Draft 2014) provides states the flexibility to use other tools for the UMA.

The TATU analysis included in the SIP indicates the maximum in the unmonitored areas is not significantly different than the 2017 FDVs calculated using all days above 75 ppb in the baseline (2007 A.D. Guidance). TCEQ has not adjusted the TATU tool to use the FDVs from the 10-Day FDV calculation procedure in the 2014 Draft A.D. Guidance. TCEQ's TATU analysis indicates the highest values are in the same area as the five monitors that typically record the highest ozone levels in the DFW area, located north and west of Fort Worth: Denton Airport South, Eagle Mountain Lake, Fort Worth Northwest, Grapevine, and Keller. We agree with TCEQ's analysis that there are not areas outside of the monitored areas that are of concern and the highest area in the unmonitored analysis is in the heavily monitored area in the northwest quadrant of the DFW area, consistent with the 5 monitors listed above. Therefore, the 2017 FDVs are properly capturing the geographic locations of the monitored peaks and no significant hotspots were identified that need to be further addressed.

For a more complete description of the modeling attainment test procedures and conclusions and EPA's evaluation of these procedures and conclusions, see the MOAAD TSD in the Docket for this action.

EPA has reviewed the modeling and modeling results and finds they meet 40 CFR part 51 requirements. The modeling using the 2014 Draft A.D. Guidance indicates that 17 out of 19 of the monitors are projected to be in attainment in 2017 while two monitors have 2017 FDVs just above the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS (75 ppb). EPA concludes that the modeling results are within the range 11 where EPA recommends Weight of Evidence (WOE) be considered to determine if the attainment demonstration is approvable.

Both EPA's 2007 A.D. and 2014 Draft A.D. guidance documents recommend that in addition to a modeling demonstration, the states include WOE when the modeling results in FDVs are close to the standard. EPA's 2007 A.D. and 2014 Draft A.D. guidance documents both discuss additional relevant information that may be considered as WOE. The 2007 A.D. Guidance that was developed for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard of 85 ppb standard had a range of 82-87 ppb where a WOE analysis was recommended to support the attainment test. Applying that guidance's general principle to the 2008 8-hour ozone standard of 75 ppb, the DFW FDVs fall within the 2-3 ppb range of that guidance where WOE should also be considered. The 2014 Draft A.D. Guidance does not set a range but indicates that the FDVs should be close to the standard to use WOE, and EPA considers these 2017 FDVs to be very close to the standard (less than 1 ppb in both guidance cases).

A WOE analysis provides additional scientific analyses as to whether the proposed control strategy, although not modeling attainment, demonstrates attainment by the attainment date. The intent of EPA's guidance is to utilize the WOE analysis to consider potential uncertainty in the modeling system and future year projections. Thus, in the DFW case, even though the modeling predicts two out of 19 monitors have FDVs that are 1 ppb above the NAAQS, additional information (WOE) can provide a basis to conclude attainment is demonstrated. EPA's guidance indicates that several items should be included in a WOE analyses, including the following: Additional modeling, additional reductions not modeled, recent emissions and monitoring trends, known uncertainties in the modeling and/or emission projections, and other pertinent scientific evaluations. Pursuant to EPA's guidance, TCEQ supplemented the control strategy modeling with WOE analyses.

We briefly discuss the more significant components of the WOE that impacted EPA's evaluation of the attainment demonstration in this action. Many other elements are discussed in the MOAAD TSD. For EPA's complete evaluation of the WOE considered for this action, see the MOAAD TSD.

Texas submitted a significant body of information as WOE in the August 5, 2016 submittal. The Texas attainment demonstration modeling discussed above included a model sensitivity run with different Texas EGU emission levels to indicate how slight changes in Texas EGU NOX emission budgets would impact projected 2017 FDVs in the DFW area. Texas increased the SIP modeling TX EGU emissions that are based on Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 12 13 by 2.75% using the older Texas EGU ozone season NOX budget and source allocations from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).14 This slight increase in EGU NOX emissions resulted in a small increase of the FDV of 0.08 ppb at the Denton monitor. TCEQ conducted this sensitivity analysis in 2015, prior to EPA finalizing the CSAPR Update Budget for the 2008 ozone standard.15 EPA has evaluated the new CSAPR Update Texas EGU ozone season NOX budget which results in a 20% decrease in emissions compared to the previous CSAPR budget that was included in the attainment modeling. The CSAPR Update required compliance with the new budget starting in May 1, 2017 which is the start of the core period of DFW ozone season. While these reductions were not modeled by TCEQ and occur after the start of the DFW ozone season, based on TCEQ's sensitivity modeling we would expect these EGU NOX reductions to result in lower ozone levels at DFW monitors during the core DFW ozone season of May through September and provide positive WOE.

TCEQ also used a modeling concept that tracks the ozone generated in the modeling from ozone precursors by location and category of type of emission source that is referred to as using source apportionment.16 For 2017 and 2018, TCEQ performed source apportionment modeling using the Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Assessment (APCA) tool.17 On the 10 highest days at each monitor, the APCA indicated that DFW sources contribute more on the 10 highest days. For these 10 highest days at the downwind monitors of Denton and Eagle Mountain Lake, the amount of ozone at the monitor due to emissions from local DFW sources was often in the 25-35 ppb range and combination of all Texas sources (DFW and rest of Texas) was often 33-43 ppb. This source apportionment indicates that on the worst days in the DFW area, local emission reductions and reductions within Texas are more beneficial than on other baseline exceedance days. This adds a positive WOE that DFW area reductions in mobile on-road and non-road categories as well as other categories aid in demonstrating attainment. When we say positive WOE, EPA is indicating that the WOE element factors more into supporting the demonstration of attainment. For EPA's complete evaluation of the modeled WOE elements considered for this action, see the MOAAD TSD.

TCEQ showed that 8-hour and 1-Hour ozone DVs have decreased over the past 18 years, based on monitoring data in the DFW Area (1997 through 2014). TCEQ indicated that the 2015 8-hour ozone DV for the DFW nonattainment area is 83 ppb at Denton Airport South, which is in attainment of the former 8-hour standard (85 ppb) and demonstrates progress toward the current 75 ppb standard.

TCEQ's trend line for the 1-Hour ozone DV shows a decrease of about 2.1 ppb per year, and the trend line for the 8-hour ozone DV shows a decrease of about 1.1 ppb per year. The 1-Hour ozone DVs decreased about 27% from 1997 through 2014 and the 8-hour ozone DVs decreased about 21% over that same time. This is positive WOE that supports the demonstration of attainment.

EPA has also supplemented TCEQ's monitoring data analysis with more recent 2014-2016 and preliminary 2017 monitoring data 18 (See Tables 3 and 4). The Denton monitor is located to the north-northwest of the DFW nonattainment area, which is downwind of the urban core and has been the highest DV monitor in DFW and has been setting the DFW NAA DV for the 2014 to 2016 years (and preliminarily in 2017) as the monitor with the highest measured DV. The 2016 DV (2014-2016 data) data indicates that only two monitors had a DV above the standard (Denton—80 ppb and Pilot Point 76 ppb). Current preliminary 2015-2017 DV data indicates that only one of the nineteen monitors in the DFW area may be above the standard with a preliminary 2017 DV of 79 at Denton.19

The monitored DV is calculated by averaging the 4th High values from three consecutive years and truncating to integer (whole number) level in ppb. For example, the 2016 DV is the average of 4th Highs from 2014-2016. The DV calculations can be driven by one high year (2015 in this case) so, for WOE purposes, we can also look at the 4th High 8-hour values for each recent year.

Overall as seen in Table 3 and 4 below, 2015 stands out with high ozone monitored data compared to other recent years (2014, 2016 and preliminary 2017). These 4th High 8-hour values support that the area with recent emission levels has been close to attaining the standard for several years. The high 2015 4th High 8-hour data is driving all the DVs for 2015, 2016, and preliminary 2017. Despite the high 2015 4th High 8-hour data that contributed to higher 2015, 2016, and preliminary 2017 DV values, examination of the 4th High 8-hour values for 2014, 2016 and preliminary 2017, support the finding that the general long-term trend identified by TCEQ of a steady reduction in DV should continue.

To assess what might have occurred if 2015 had not been such a high year we have calculated the average of the last two years (2016 and preliminary 2017) 4th Highs, and all monitors have values that are 1 ppb or more below the standard (values are 74.5 ppb or less).20 Both the individual 4th High monitoring data from 2014, 2016, and 2017 and the average of the 2016 and preliminary 2017 data are some of the strongest, positive WOE. The ozone data indicates that emission levels in DFW NAA and the meteorology that occurred in 2014, 2016, and 2017 have led to ozone levels that are consistent with attainment of the NAAQS. Overall, with the exception of the high 2015 data, the recent monitoring data provides a strong positive WOE that supports the demonstration of attainment.

TCEQ also submitted WOE components that are further discussed in the MOAAD TSD including the following: Conceptual model and selection of the 2006 period to fit the range of days and synoptic cycles that yield high ozone in DFW, additional ozone design value trends, ozone variability analysis and trends, NOX and VOC monitoring trends, emission trends, NOX and VOC chemistry limitation analysis, and local contribution analyses. Details of these WOE components that also provide positive WOE are included in Chapter 5 of the August 5, 2016 SIP submittal and discussed in the MOAAD TSD.

CEMENT KILNS—TCEQ also noted that the modeling for the Cement Kilns in Ellis County was based on a NOX cap of 17.64 tons per day when actual NOX emissions have been less than 10 tons per day. The modeling of the kiln emissions in the 2017 future year modeling is high compared to actuals and even new permitted limits and provides positive WOE. EPA's guidance in this case recommends the cap limits be modeled. The fact that the three kilns have not operated at their cap, two of the kilns have shut down and the shut downs are permeant and enforceable, and the third kiln through reconstruction has lower emissions, and the NOX reductions at Ash Grove (NOX permitted reduction of 2.45 tons per day) provide positive WOE.

DFW AREA EMISSION REDUCTION CREDITS (ERC) AND DISCRETE EMISSION REDUCTION CREDITS (DERC)—TCEQ indicated that they modeled the DFW area ERCs and DERCs in the 2017 future year modeling and this is conservative as it is unlikely that all these credits would be used in one year. EPA agrees it might be conservative, but including the ERCs and DERCs in the future year 2017 modeling is consistent with EPA's guidance.21 EPA guidance calls for emission credits that are being carried in the emissions bank to be included in modeled projections because these emissions will come back in the air when and if the credits are used and without any clear limit on annual usage it cannot be clearly demonstrated that all the ERC/DERCs will not be used in the 2017 future year. It does provide positive WOE.

TEXAS EMISSION REDUCTION PLAN (TERP)—The TERP program provides financial incentives to eligible individuals, businesses, or local governments to reduce emissions from polluting vehicles and equipment. In 2015, the Texas Legislature increased funding for TERP to $118.1 million per year for FY 2016 and 2017, which was an increase of $40.5 million per year which resulted in more grant projects in eligible TERP areas, including the DFW area. Texas also noted that since the inception of TERP in 2001 through August 2015, over $968 million dollars have been spent within the state through TERP and the Diesel Emission Reduction Incentive Program (DERI) that has resulted in 168,289 tons of NOX reductions in Texas by 2015. TCEQ also noted that over $327 million in DERI grants have been awarded to projects in the DFW area through 2015 resulting with a projected NOX reduction of 58,062 tons that is also estimated as 18.7 tons per day of NOX. These DERI and TERP benefits were not modeled but the reductions and future reductions do provide positive WOE.

LOW-INCOME VEHICLE REPAIR ASSISTANCE, RETROFIT, AND ACCELERATED VEHICLE RETIREMENT PROGRAM (LIRAP)—TCEQ established a financial assistance program for qualified owners of vehicles that fail the emissions test. The purpose of this voluntary program is to repair or remove older, higher emitting vehicles from use in certain counties with high ozone. The counties currently participating in the LIRAP include, but are not limited to Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant. In DFW NAA between December 12, 2007 and February 29, 2016, the program repaired 39,379 vehicles at a cost of $20.894 million and retired and replaced 55,807 vehicles at a cost of $167.629 million. Participating DFW area counties were allocated approximately $21.6 million per year for the LIRAP for FYs 2016 and 2017. This is an increase of approximately $18.8 million per year over the previous biennium. These LIRAP benefits were not modeled but the reductions and future reductions do provide positive WOE.

LOCAL INITIATIVE PROJECTS (LIP)—Funds are provided to counties participating in the LIP for implementation of air quality improvement strategies through local projects and initiatives (Examples: Studies on emissions inspection fraud and targeting high emission vehicles). The 2016 and 2017 state budgets included increases of approximately $2.1 million per year over previous biennium. These LIP benefits were not modeled but the reductions and future reductions do provide positive WOE.

LOCAL INITIATIVES—The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) submitted an assortment of locally implemented strategies in the DFW nonattainment area including pilot programs, new programs, or programs with pending methodologies. These Local Initiatives benefits were not modeled but the reductions and future reductions do provide positive WOE.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY/RENEWABLE ENERGY (EE/RE) MEASURES—Additional quantified and unquantified WOE emissions reductions (without NOX reductions calculated) include a number of energy efficiency measures (Residential and Commercial Building Codes, municipality purchase of renewable energies, political subdivision projects, electric utility sponsored programs, Federal facilities EE/RE Projects, etc.). These efforts are not easily quantifiable for an equivalent amount of NOX reductions that may occur, but they do provide positive WOE that growth in electrical demand is reduced and this results in reduced NOX emissions from EGUs.

VOLUNTARY MEASURES—While the oil and natural gas industry is required to install controls either due to State or Federal requirements, the oil and natural gas industry has in some instances voluntarily implemented additional controls and practices to reduce VOC emissions from oil and natural gas operations in the DFW nonattainment area as well as other areas of the state. Since these are voluntary measures and reporting/verification is not a requirement these efforts are not easily quantifiable from an equivalent amount of NOX and VOC reductions that may occur, but they do provide positive WOE that emissions from oil and gas development which is beneficial to lowering ozone formation from this sector.

Consistent with EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.1108(c), Texas submitted a modeled attainment demonstration based on a photochemical grid modeling evaluation. EPA has reviewed the components of TCEQ's photochemical modeling demonstration and finds the analysis is consistent with EPA's guidance and meets 40 CFR part 51, including 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W—Guideline on Air Quality Models. The photochemical modeling was conducted to project 2017 ozone levels in order to demonstrate attainment of the standard by the attainment date. Although the modeled attainment test is not fully met and two of the 19 DFW monitors were projected to be slightly above the standard (less than 1 ppb), consistent with our A.D. guidance, TCEQ submitted a WOE analysis. This WOE analysis provides additional scientific analyses based on identification of emission reductions not captured in the modeling, monitoring trends and recent monitoring data (EPA included more recent monitoring data since the SIP submission) and other modeling analyses. The combination of the modeling and the WOE demonstrate attainment by the attainment date. We are therefore proposing to approve the attainment demonstration submitted August 5, 2016.

An emissions inventory is a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from all relevant sources of pollutants in the NAA. It is required by sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) of the CAA that nonattainment plan provisions include an inventory of NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in the nonattainment area. EPA previously approved SIP revisions to the emissions inventory for the DFW moderate nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 88124 (December 7, 2016).

The EPA approved the NNSR permitting program for the DFW NAA under the 2008 ozone NAAQS at 82 FR 27122 (June 14, 2017). All NNSR programs have to require (1) the installation of the lowest achievable emission rate, (2) emission offsets, and (3) opportunity for public involvement.

The EPA approved a State SIP revision for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS requirements for vehicle I/M. See 82 FR 27122 (June 14, 2017).

On July 10, 2015, the TCEQ submitted a RFP SIP revision (supplemented on April 22, 2016) to the EPA. For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA fully approved the DFW moderate nonattainment area RFP SIP revision, the associated contingency measures, and the 2017 RFP Attainment Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) on December 7, 2016 (81 FR 88124).

Section 182(b)(2) of the Act requires states to submit a SIP revision and implement RACT for major stationary sources in moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas. Based on the moderate classification of the DFW NAA for the 2008 ozone standard, a major stationary source is one that emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tpy or more of NOX or VOC. The EPA approved revisions to the State's SIP that revised rules for control of VOC to assist the DFW NAA in attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and that demonstrates that the VOC RACT requirements are met for the DFW NAA. The approval includes Wise County, a county previously added in the 2008 ozone designations, as part of the DFW moderate NAA. We approved the submitted NOX rules (that included Wise County) to assist the DFW NAA in attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and then we approved the NOX RACT demonstration as part of the DFW moderate NAA SIPs but for one affected source.22 Our actions on the RACT for NOX and VOC for the DFW NAA are found at 82 FR 44320 and 82 FR 60546.

The RACM requirement applies to all nonattainment areas that are required to submit an attainment demonstration. Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires SIPs to provide for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable and for attainment of the standard. EPA interpreted the RACM requirements of 172(c)(1) in the General Preamble to the Act's 1990 Amendments (April 16, 1992, 57 FR 13498) as imposing a duty on states to consider all available control measures and to adopt and implement such measures as are reasonably available for implementation in the particular nonattainment area. EPA also issued a memorandum reaffirming its position on this topic, “Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,” John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated November 30, 1999. In addition, measures available for implementation in the nonattainment area that could not be implemented on a schedule that would advance the attainment date in the area would not be considered by EPA as reasonable to require for implementation. EPA indicated that a State could reject certain measures as not reasonably available for various reasons related to local conditions. A state could include area-specific reasons for rejecting a measure as RACM, such as the measure would not advance the attainment date, or was not technologically or economically feasible. Although EPA encourages areas to implement available RACM measures as potentially cost-effective methods to achieve emissions reductions in the short term, EPA does not believe that section 172(c)(1) requires implementation of potential RACM measures that either require costly implementation efforts or produce relatively small emissions reductions that will not be sufficient to allow the area to achieve attainment in advance of full implementation of all other required measures.

The TCEQ provided the DFW RACM analysis in Appendix G of the SIP submittal. Texas evaluated control strategies for NOX and VOC emissions, from area, point and mobile (on-road and non-road) sources. The candidate strategies were identified by reviewing existing control strategies, existing sources of NOX and VOC in the DFW NAA, and input from stakeholders (full list of measures is provided in Appendix G of the SIP submittal). As discussed in Chapter 5 of the SIP submittal and in Appendix D (Conceptual Model for the DFW Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision for the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard), sensitivity analyses and the photochemical modeling indicate that in the DFW NAA ozone is more responsive to NOX reductions than VOC reductions. Many measures to reduce VOCs are already in place, through state and Federal mobile source programs, including recently approved VOC rules in Wise County (82 FR 60546). Based on previous modeling by TCEQ and the EPA, only large reductions of VOC emissions, on the order of 100 tons per day of typical VOCs, would advance the attainment date in DFW. We were unable to identify any additional available evaluated measures that cumulatively would provide 100 tons per day in VOC emissions reductions and thus, advance the attainment date for the DFW area. For more detail, see the Moderate Nonattainment Area TSD (MNA TSD).

The majority of NOX emissions in the DFW NAA come from mobile sources and industrial processes; emissions of NOX have been reduced to a large extent with controls on stationary sources and improved mobile source programs. In addition, the State extended its NOX RACT rules that were already in place to include Wise County (81 FR 21747). For more detail, see the MNA TSD.

We also reviewed whether there were additional available strategies to reduce NOX emissions from mobile sources. Our analysis showed that the State SIP already has in place Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), Voluntary Mobile Emissions Program (VMEP), Texas Emissions Reductions Plan (TERP), and a motor vehicle I/M program that EPA has previously approved. Several of the measures in Appendix G are already covered under the TCMs, VMEP, TERP programs and several other local measures are being implemented at the airports and by various cities and others within the DFW NAA.

In order to advance attainment by a year (i.e., by July 20, 2017), the State would have to implement any additional control measures needed for attainment by the beginning of the 2016 ozone season, i.e., by March 1, 2016.23 While the State was able to revise the SIP with the new attainment date, its review and analysis of additional RACM measures did not result in a finding that any additional measures could be adopted and implemented by March 1, 2016 in order to advance the attainment date. Based on the RACM analysis, the TCEQ determined that no potential control measures met the criteria to be considered RACM. All potential control measures evaluated for stationary sources were determined not to be RACM due to technological or economic feasibility, enforceability, adverse impacts, or ability of the measure to advance attainment of the NAAQS. In general, the State cited to the inability to advance attainment as the primary determining factor in the RACM analyses. Because there are no measures that could have been adopted and implemented by a date that has now passed, we believe the State properly concluded that additional measures are not RACM.

EPA interprets the Act's RACM requirement to mean that a measure is not RACM if it would not advance the attainment date (57 FR 13498, 13560). This interpretation has been upheld. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155 (D.C. Cir. 2002) and Sierra Club v. United States EPA, 314 F.3d 735 (5th Cir. 2002). A state must consider all potentially available measures to determine whether they are reasonably available for implementation in the area, and whether they would advance the area's attainment date. The state may reject measures as not meeting RACM, however, if they would not advance the attainment date, would cause substantial widespread and long-term adverse impacts, or would be economically or technologically infeasible. Additionally, potential measures requiring intensive and costly implementation efforts are not RACM. Sierra Club v. EPA at 162-163 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735 (5th Cir. 2002); BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003). To demonstrate measures that advance attainment of the ozone standard, the emission reductions from the measures must occur no later than the start of the 2016 ozone season—i.e., by March 1, 2016, in order to advance attainment. Because there are no measures that could have been adopted and implemented by a date that has now passed, we believe it is appropriate to conclude that additional measures are not RACM. EPA expects States to prepare a reasoned justification for rejection of any available control measure. The resulting available control measures should then be evaluated for reasonableness considering their technical and economic feasibility, and whether they will advance attainment. In the case of the DFW SIP, TCEQ performed an analysis to determine whether all RACM were included in the SIP. The Fifth Circuit in Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 745 (5th Cir. 2002) impressed upon EPA the duty to (1) demonstrate that it has examined relevant data, and (2) provide a satisfactory explanation for its rejection of a proposed RACM and why the proposed RACM, individually and in combination, would not advance the area's attainment date. See Ober, 243 F.3d at 1195 (quoting American Lung Ass'n v. EPA, 134 F.3d 388, 392-93 (D.C. Cir. 1998)). EPA reviewed the State's RACM analysis and believes that the State has included sufficient documentation concerning the rejection of the available measures as RACM for the DFW NAA. Further information is found in the MNA TSD on why we agree with the State that no additional measures are RACM for the DFW area and therefore the RACM requirement of the Act is met.

We propose that any other available evaluated measures are not reasonably available for the DFW NAA, because they are either economically or technically infeasible, or would not produce emissions reductions sufficient to advance the attainment date in the DFW NAA and therefore, should not be considered RACM.

The ozone attainment demonstration SIP must include MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. It is a process required by section 176(c) of the Act for ensuring that the effects of emissions from all on-road sources are consistent with attainment of the standard. EPA's transportation conformity rules at 40 CFR 93 require that transportation plans and related projects result in emissions that do not exceed the MVEB established in the SIP. The attainment year established in the DFW ozone attainment demonstration SIP is the calendar year of the final ozone season for determining attainment, which is 2017. See 40 CFR 93.118(b).

The attainment MVEB is the level of total allowable on-road emissions established by the control strategy implementation plan. Ozone attainment demonstrations must include the estimates of motor vehicle VOC and NOX emissions that are consistent with attainment, which then act as a ceiling for the purposes of determining whether transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the attainment demonstration SIP. In this case, the attainment MVEBs set the maximum level of on-road emissions that can be produced in 2017, when considered with emissions from all other sources, which demonstrate attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

The 2017 attainment MVEBs established by this plan and that the EPA is proposing to incorporate into the DFW SIP are listed in Table 12:

We found the 2017 attainment MVEBs (also termed transportation conformity budgets) “adequate” and on September 7, 2016, the availability of these budgets was posted on EPA's website for the purpose of soliciting public comments. The comment period closed on October 6, 2016, and we received no comments. On November 8, 2016, we published the Notice of Adequacy Determination for these attainment MVEBs (81 FR 78591). Once determined adequate, these attainment MVEBs must be used in future DFW transportation conformity determinations.

The attainment budget represents the on-road mobile source emissions that have been modeled for the attainment demonstration. The budget reflects all of the on-road control measures in that demonstration. We believe that the MVEBs are consistent with all applicable SIP requirements and thus are proposing to approve the 2017 attainment MVEBs into the DFW ozone attainment demonstration SIP. All future transportation improvement programs, projects and plans for the DFW NAA will need to show conformity to the budgets in this plan.

The general requirements for ozone nonattainment plans under CAA section 172(c)(9) specify that each nonattainment plan must contain additional measures that will take effect without further action by the State or EPA if an area fails to attain the standard by the applicable date.24 The Act does not specify the type of measures, quantity of emissions reductions required, or how many contingency measures are needed and thus, EPA has interpreted sections 172 and 182 of the Act in the General Preamble (57 FR 13498, 13510) to require states with moderate or above ozone NAAs to include sufficient contingency measures so that, upon implementation of such measures, additional emissions reductions of up to 3 percent of the emissions in the adjusted base year inventory would be achieved in the year following the year in which the failure has been identified. These could include federal measures and local measures already scheduled for implementation, since the CAA does not preclude a state from implementing such measures before they are triggered. EPA based the 3% recommendation in the General Preamble on the fact that moderate and above areas are generally required through the Rate of Progress (ROP)/RFP requirements to achieve an average of 3% reduction per year until they attain the NAAQS. The state must specify the type of contingency measures and the quantity of emissions reductions and show that the measures can be implemented with no further rulemaking and minimal further action by the State. See the MNA TSD for a list of applicable guidance documents.

The State submittal includes a contingency measures plan consisting of the emission reductions from the additional fleet turnover due to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program and Federal non-road mobile new vehicle certification standards. These measures provide NOX emission reductions that are in excess of 3 percent of the NOX emissions in the adjusted base year inventory.25 See our MNA TSD for more detail. The fleet turnover measure is a Federal rule and as such is enforceable by the EPA, the State and the public. This proposed approval action would make the specified measures' projected SIP credits enforceable by the EPA and the public.

All specified measures are surplus to the reductions in the attainment demonstration. Finally, the measures are considered permanent because they continue for as long as the period in which they are used in the failure-to-attain contingency measures plan. See the MNA TSD for additional detail.

Section 110(l) of the CAA precludes EPA from approving a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and RFP (as defined in section 171 of the Act), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. This action proposes approval of a plan that demonstrates that already adopted measures both Federal or State will provide levels of emissions consistent with attaining the ozone NAAQS. Since it is a demonstration, it will not interfere with any other requirement of the Act. Also in this action, we are proposing to approve the attainment MVEBs, which are lower than the previously approved MVEBs for RFP (81 FR 88124), and the contingency measures plan. The lower attainment demonstration MVEBs and on-going emission reductions through the contingency measures plan both provide progress toward attainment and as such do not interfere with any applicable requirement of the Act.

We are proposing to approve the August 5, 2016 2008 8-hour ozone modeling and WOE submitted by the State of Texas because it demonstrates attainment by the attainment date. We also are proposing to approve the RACM analysis, the contingency measures plan in the event of failure to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, and the associated Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) for 2017. Finally, we are proposing approval of the use of TATU's tool and its Unmonitored Area analysis as acceptable for meeting the recommended evaluation of ozone levels in the Unmonitored Area analysis for this SIP proposed approval action.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date that the revision was adopted by the YSAQMD and the date that it was submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to the EPA.

On April 17, 2017, the EPA determined that the submittal for YSAQMD Rule 2.14 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

On January 2, 2004 (69 FR 34), the EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of a previous submission of Rule 2.14 with no sanctions because the part of the rule that was disapproved, “Appendix A,” expired by its own terms on January 1, 2005. For additional information, please see the technical support document (TSD) for today's rulemaking.

VOCs contribute to the production of ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Architectural coatings are coatings that are applied to stationary structures and their accessories. They include house paints, stains, industrial maintenance coatings, traffic coatings, and many other products. VOCs are emitted from the coatings during application and curing, and from the associated solvents used for thinning and clean-up.

YSAQMD Rule 2.14 controls VOC emissions from architectural coatings by establishing VOC limits on architectural coatings supplied, sold, offered for sale, manufactured, blended, or repackaged for use within the YSAQMD, as well as architectural coatings applied or solicited for application within the District. The revisions to Rule 2.14 include the elimination of the averaging provision, which was the basis for the EPA's 2004 limited disapproval of a prior version of this rule, and the tightening of many of the Rule's VOC limits. The TSD has more information about this rule.

SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).

Generally, SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document, and each major source of VOCs in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The YSAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as severe nonattainment for the 2008 and the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR 81.305).

Because there is no relevant EPA CTG document and because there are no major architectural coating sources within the District, architectural coatings are not subject to RACT requirements. However, architectural coatings are subject to other VOC content limits and control measures described in the TSD.

Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate the enforceability, revision/relaxation, and stringency requirements for this rule include the following:

1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992 and 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992).

2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations” (“the Bluebook,” U.S. EPA, May 25, 1988; revised January 11, 1990).

3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies” (“the Little Bluebook,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001).

4. National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings, 40 CFR 59, Subpart D.

5. CARB “Suggested Control Measure for Architectural Coatings,” Approved 2007.

6. YSAQMD Rule 2.14, “Architectural Coatings,” EPA Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval on January 2, 2004 (69 FR 34).

This rule is consistent with CAA requirements and relevant guidance regarding enforceability, stringency, and SIP revisions. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rule.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve the submitted rule because it fulfills all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until June 4, 2018. If we take final action to approve the submitted rule, our final action will incorporate this rule into the federally enforceable SIP.

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the YSAQMD rule described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

On February 2, 2017, MDEQ submitted a request to incorporate revisions to Michigan's Air Pollution Control Rules in Chapter 336, Part 9—Emissions Limitations and Prohibitions—Miscellaneous (Part 9) in the Michigan SIP. Michigan's submittal included revisions to three separate rules in Part 9: R 336.1902—“Adoption of standards by reference” (rule 902); R 336.1916—“Affirmative defense for excess emissions during start-up or shutdown” (rule 916); and R 336.1930—“Emission of carbon monoxide from ferrous cupola operations” (rule 930). This rule will only take action on rule 930, while the revisions to rule 902 and 916 will be addressed separately.

Michigan's rule 930 specifies CO emission limits for large ferrous cupola operations with a melting capacity of 20 tons or more per hour. The version of rule 930 currently approved into the Michigan SIP only applies to ferrous cupola operations in Saginaw, Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne Counties in Michigan.1 The rule is designed to require installation of afterburner control system, or equivalent, which reduces the CO emissions from the ferrous cupola by 90 percent.

Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0358. All documents in the docket are listed in the Regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0358. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. This type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed in section I.C of this preamble. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

Organization of This Document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated industrial source categories that are the subject of this proposal. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992), the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities source category, which for the remainder of this document will be referred to as Friction Materials Manufacturing or FMM, was initially defined as any facility engaged in the manufacture or remanufacture of friction products, including automobile brake linings and disc pads. Hazardous air pollutants (HAP) are emitted from solvents added during the proportioning and mixing of raw materials and the solvents contained in the adhesives used to bond the linings to the brake shoes. Most HAP emissions occur during heated processes such as curing, bonding and debonding processes. The 1992 initial list of identified HAP from friction products facilities were phenol, toluene, methyl chloroform, and methyl ethyl (which is no longer listed as a HAP (see 70 FR 75059, December 19, 2005)). In 2002, the source category definition was amended (see 67 FR 64497, October 18, 2002) to define a FMM facility as a facility that manufactures friction materials using a solvent-based process. Friction materials are used in the manufacture of products used to accelerate or decelerate objects. Products that use friction materials include, but are not limited to, disc brake pucks, disc brake pads, brake linings, brake shoes, brake segments, brake blocks, brake discs, clutch facings, and clutches.

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at http://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/friction-materials-manufacturing-facilities-national-emission. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this same website. Information on the overall RTR program is available at http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0358).

Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the public docket. If you submit a CD-ROM or disk that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0358.

The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards for emissions of HAP from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves evaluating these standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to further address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the “residual risk review.” In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to determine if there are “developments in practices, processes, or control technologies” that may be appropriate to incorporate into the standards. This review is commonly referred to as the “technology review.” When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, it is commonly referred to as the “risk and technology review.” The discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears in the document, CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology, which is in the docket for this rulemaking.

In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different requirements for major source standards and area source standards. “Major sources” are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. All other sources are “area sources.” For major sources, CAA section 112(d) provides that the technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT “floor.” The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA discretion to set standards based on generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT standards.

The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and addressing any remaining (i.e., “residual”) risk according to CAA section 112(f). Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine for source categories subject to MACT standards whether promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step process for developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's interpretation of “ample margin of safety” developed in the “National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants” (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines whether risks are acceptable. This determination “considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) 1 of approximately [1-in-10 thousand] [i.e., 100-in-1 million].” 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions standards necessary to bring risks to an acceptable level without considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety “in consideration of all health information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than approximately [1-in-1 million], as well as other relevant factors, including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors relevant to each particular decision.” Id. The EPA must promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. After conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, we consider whether a more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.

CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them “as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)” no less frequently than every 8 years. In conducting this so-called “technology review,” the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (DC Cir. 2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (DC Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant to CAA 112(d)(6).

Only facilities that are major sources of HAP emissions are subject to the FMM NESHAP; area sources of HAP are not subject to the rule. The NESHAP for this source category is codified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ. The HAP emitted by FMM include formaldehyde, methanol, hexane, and phenol. Formaldehyde has the potential to cause chronic cancer and noncancer health effects. The other three HAP are noncarcinogenic and have the potential for chronic and acute noncancer health effects. In 2017, there were two FMM facilities that were subject to the NESHAP.

The affected sources at FMM facilities are the solvent mixing operations as defined in 40 CFR 63.9565. Solvent Mixing Operations are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ, emission limits. Current emission limits address large and small solvent mixers. New, reconstructed, and existing large solvent mixers must limit HAP solvent emissions to the atmosphere to no more than 30 percent of that which would otherwise be emitted in the absence of solvent recovery and/or solvent substitution, based on a 7-day block average (see 40 CFR 63.9500(a)). New, reconstructed, and existing small solvent mixers must limit HAP solvent emissions to the atmosphere to no more than 15 percent of that which would otherwise be emitted in the absence of solvent recovery and/or solvent substitution, based on a 7-day block average (see 40 CFR 63.9500(b)).

There are two FMM facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ. The EPA visited both facilities during the development of the NESHAP. We visited Railroad Friction Products Corporation (RFPC) in Maxton, NC, in August 2016, and Knowlton Technologies, LLC, in Watertown, NY, in November 2016. During the visits, we discussed quantity and size of solvent mixers at each site and associated emission points, process controls, monitors, unregulated emissions, and other aspects of facility operations. We attached a questionnaire to the site visit letter and discussed the questionnaire during both site visits. We used the information provided by the facilities to help create the modeling file, as well as profile the sector. The site visit reports are documented in the following memoranda, which are available in the docket for this action: “Site Visit Report-Railroad Friction Products” and “Site Visit Report-Knowlton Technologies, LLC.”

The EPA used information from the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), Best Available Control Technology (BACT), and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) Clearinghouse (RBLC) database, reviewed title V permits for each FMM facility, and reviewed regulatory actions related to emissions controls at similar sources that could be applicable to FMM. The EPA reviewed the RBLC to identify potential additional control technologies. No additional control technologies applicable to FMM were found using the RBLC; see sections III.C and IV.C of this preamble and the memorandum, “Technology Review for the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities Source Category,” which is available in the docket for this action, for further details on this source of information.

In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this proposal.

As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2), we apply a two-step process to determine whether or not risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, “the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to any single factor” and, thus, “[t]he Administrator believes that the acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk measures and information.” 54 FR 38046, September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety determination, “the Agency again considers all of the health risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant factors.” Id.

The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index (HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.2 The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risks within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental effects. The scope of the EPA's risk analysis is consistent with the EPA's response to comment on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that:

The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not attempt to quantify those HAP risks that may be associated with emissions from other facilities that do not include the source category under review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity of the sources in the category.

The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing noncancer risks, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to result in increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May 2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA “that RTR assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions from other sources in the area.” 3

In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA is incorporating cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those reflected in this proposal. The Agency is (1) conducting facility-wide assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as other emission points within the facilities; (2) combining exposures from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative pollutants, analyzing the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the RTR risk assessments have always considered aggregate cancer risk from all carcinogens and aggregate noncancer HI from all non-carcinogens affecting the same target organ system.

Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-wide HAP risks in the context of total HAP risks from all sources combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the uncertainties of doing so. Because of the contribution to total HAP risk from emission sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR review, such estimates of total HAP risks would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the assessments too unreliable.

Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we identify such developments, in order to inform our decision of whether it is “necessary” to revise the emissions standards, we analyze the technical feasibility of applying these developments and the estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental impacts, and we also consider the emission reductions. In addition, we considered the appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we consider any of the following to be a “development”:

• Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was not identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards;

• Any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment (that were identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions reduction;

• Any work practice or operational procedure that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards;

• Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; and

• Any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original MACT standards).

In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed (or last updated) the NESHAP, we reviewed a variety of data sources in our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. Among the sources we reviewed were the NESHAP for various industries that were promulgated since the MACT standards being reviewed in this action. We reviewed the regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses associated with these regulatory actions to identify any practices, processes, and control technologies considered in these efforts that could be applied to emission sources in the FMM source category, as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications associated with the use of these technologies. Additionally, we requested information from facilities regarding developments in practices, processes, or control technology. Finally, we reviewed information from other sources, such as state and/or local permitting agency databases and industry-supported databases.

The EPA conducted a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risks within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental effects. The seven sections that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this action contains the following document which provides more information on the risk assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the Friction Materials Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the February 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to assess risks (as described in the seven primary steps below) are consistent with those peer-reviewed by a panel of the EPA's SAB in 2009 and described in their peer review report issued in 2010; 4 they are also consistent with the key recommendations contained in that report.

Solvent mixers are the primary emission source at FMM facilities. Actual emissions for RFPC, which utilizes a solvent recovery system, are estimated using mass balance calculations from the solvent storage tanks. All solvent not recovered is assumed to be emitted.

Potential HAP emissions at Knowlton Technologies, LLC, are captured by a permanent total enclosure and ducted to a boiler for destruction. The potential HAP emissions at Knowlton come from resins/solvents used in the saturator process line, including the resin kitchen. Annual potential emissions of formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol were calculated by using the annual purchasing total of resins/solvents that contain HAP, multiplied by the maximum percent of HAP contained in the resin/solvent to provide a conservative estimate of potential emissions. The potential emissions are controlled by a permanent total enclosure with a capture efficiency of 100 percent, which routes the potential emissions to a boiler. Data from emissions testing conducted in January 2003 were used to determine the boiler destruction efficiencies for a select group of organic compounds, including formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol. Pollutant-specific boiler control efficiencies were used to calculate post control device emissions to the atmosphere. Additional details on the data and methods used to develop actual emissions estimates for the risk modeling are provided in the memorandum, “Development of the Risk Modeling Dataset,” which is available in the docket for this action.

The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time period. These “actual” emission levels are often lower than the emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT standards. The emissions level allowed to be emitted by the MACT standards is referred to as the “MACT-allowable” emissions level. We discussed the use of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTRs (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we noted that assessing the risks at the MACT-allowable level is inherently reasonable since these risks reflect the maximum level facilities could emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.)

For FMM, we calculated allowable emissions differently for each facility. For RFPC, we determined that allowable emissions are equal to actual emissions because the facility uses both solvent recovery and solvent substitution to comply with the MACT standard. Solvent substitution credits the facility for 100-percent recovery on every batch that doesn't require the use of a HAP solvent. Batch operations using solvent substitution, thus credited for 100-percent recovery, are then averaged with the batches using solvent recovery, to calculate the facility-wide average recovery percentage. That is to say, if the facility ran 10 batches using solvent substitution, credited as 100-percent recovery, and 10 batches using solvent recovery, which achieved 50-percent recovery of the HAP solvent used, the facility would have an average of 75-percent recovery. These calculations show why using the method of calculating allowable emissions by setting them equal to the minimum requirements to comply with the rule (70- percent recovery) does not accurately quantify this source category. The resulting emissions if each facility calculated each batch to emit at 70-percent would result in actual emissions exceeding allowable emissions due to the credited solvent substitution. As a result, we have decided to set actual emissions equal to allowable emissions to better quantify facility emissions. Allowable emissions for Knowlton Technologies, LLC, were calculated by setting the destruction efficiency at 70-percent to comply with the MACT standard instead of the >99-percent currently estimated by the facility. By setting the destruction efficiency to 70-percent, we can estimate the amount of HAP released if the facility were to meet the minimum requirements for compliance with the MACT standard. Additional details on the data and methods used to develop MACT-allowable emissions for the risk modeling are provided in the memorandum, “Development of the Risk Modeling Dataset,” which is available in the docket for this action.

Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risks from the source category addressed in this proposal were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3). The HEM-3 performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risks using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response information.

The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations from industrial facilities.5 To perform the dispersion modeling and to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block 6 internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health risks. These dose-response values are the latest values recommended by the EPA for HAP. They are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants and are discussed in more detail later in this section.

In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we used the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted by each source for which we have emissions data in the source category. The air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid were used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. We calculated the MIR for each facility as the cancer risk associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year, for a 70-year period) exposure to the maximum concentration at the centroid of inhabited census blocks. Individual cancer risks were calculated by multiplying the estimated lifetime exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per cubic meter) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is an upper bound estimate of an individual's probability of contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk assessments, we generally use UREs from the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In cases where new, scientifically credible dose-response values have been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such dose-response values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if appropriate.

In 2004, the EPA determined that the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology (CIIT) cancer dose-response value for formaldehyde (5.5 × 10−9 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3)) was based on better science than the 1991 IRIS dose-response value (1.3 × 10−5 per mg/m3) and, we switched from using the IRIS value to the CIIT value in risk assessments supporting regulatory actions. Based on subsequent published research, however, the EPA changed its determination regarding the CIIT model, and, in 2010, the EPA returned to using the 1991 IRIS value. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) completed its review of the EPA's draft assessment in April of 2011 (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record id=13142), and the EPA has been working on revising the formaldehyde assessment. The EPA will follow the NAS Report recommendations and will present results obtained by implementing the biologically based dose response (BBDR) model for formaldehyde. The EPA will compare these estimates with those currently presented in the External Review draft of the assessment and will discuss their strengths and weaknesses. As recommended by the NAS committee, appropriate sensitivity and uncertainty analyses will be an integral component of implementing the BBDR model. The draft IRIS assessment will be revised in response to the NAS peer review and public comments and the final assessment will be posted on the IRIS database. In the interim, we will present findings using the 1991 IRIS value as a primary estimate and may also consider other information as the science evolves.

To estimate incremental individual lifetime cancer risks associated with emissions from the facilities in the source category, the EPA summed the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP 7 emitted by the modeled sources. Cancer incidence and the distribution of individual cancer risks for the population within 50 km of the sources were also estimated for the source category by summing individual risks. A distance of 50 km is consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian dispersion models, including AERMOD.

To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-response value is the EPA RfC (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary), defined as “an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.” In cases where an RfC from the EPA's IRIS database is not available or where the EPA determines that using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer dose-response value can be obtained from the following prioritized sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA: (1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (http://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3), as noted above, a scientifically credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA.

For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and exposure location. We use the peak hourly emission rate,8 worst-case dispersion conditions, and, in accordance with our mandate under section 112 of the CAA, the point of highest off-site exposure to assess the potential risk to the maximally exposed individual.

To characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations), if available, to calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the estimated acute exposure by the acute dose-response value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available, the EPA calculates acute HQs.

An acute REL is defined as “the concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration. ”  9 Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.10 They are guideline levels for “once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.” Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is specifically defined as “the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic non-sensory effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure.” Airborne concentrations below AEGL-1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and progressively increasing, but transient and non-disabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, non-sensory effects.” Id. AEGL-2 are defined as “the airborne concentration (expressed as parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to escape.” Id.

ERPGs are developed for emergency planning and are intended as health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to chemicals.” 11 Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 is defined as “the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving a clearly defined, objectionable odor.” Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG-2 is defined as “the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability to take protective action.” Id. at 1.

An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).

For this source category, we used the default multiplication factor of 10. While we don't anticipate large variations in hourly emissions, we took a conservative approach to determine if the default multiplication factor would result in high risk. Upon modeling the emissions using the multiplication factor of 10, we determined that risk was still below 1-in-1 million. Due to the low risk results, further research to justify a lower multiplication factor was not necessary.

In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts are deemed negligible for HAP where acute HQs are less than or equal to 1 (even under the conservative assumptions of the screening assessment), and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we consider additional site-specific data to develop a more refined estimate of the potential for acute impacts of concern. For this source category, we did not have to perform any refined acute assessments.

The EPA conducted a tiered screening assessment examining the potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determined whether any sources in the source category emitted any HAP known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), as identified in the EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (available at http://www2.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library).

For the FMM source category, we did not identify emissions of any PB-HAP. Because we did not identify PB-HAP emissions, no further evaluation of multipathway risk was conducted for this source category.

The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential for adverse environmental effects as required under section 112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines “adverse environmental effect” as “any significant and widespread adverse effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of environmental quality over broad areas.”

The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as “environmental HAP,” in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, polcyclic organic matter, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid gases included in the screening assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF).

HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The acid gases, HCl and HF, were included due to their well-documented potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both community-level and population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities.

An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels, lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-adverse-effect level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and widespread.

For further information on how the environmental risk screening assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Friction Materials Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review February 2018 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.

For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first determined whether any of the FMM facilities emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the FMM source category, we did not identify emissions of any of the seven environmental HAP included in the screen. Because we did not identify environmental HAP emissions, no further evaluation of environmental risk was conducted.

To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine the risks from the entire “facility,” where the facility includes all HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data.

For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment using a dataset that the EPA compiled from the 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). We used the NEI data for the facility and did not adjust any category or “non-category” data. Therefore, there could be differences in the dataset from that used for the source category assessments described in this preamble. We analyzed risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted “facility-wide” for the populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, we made a reasonable attempt to identify the source category risks, and these risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source category addressed in this proposal. We also specifically examined the facility that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of interest. The Residual Risk Assessment for the Friction Materials Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review February 2018 Proposed Rule, available through the docket for this action, provides the methodology and results of the facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the percentage of source category contribution to facility-wide risks.

Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are protective of health and the environment. A brief discussion of the uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the FMM Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review February 2018 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.

Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations.

We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts (e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels (e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.

Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risks or the incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block is not well represented by a single location.

There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively, and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that is stated in the EPA's 2005 Cancer Guidelines; namely, that “the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including default options that are used in the absence of scientific data to the contrary, should be health protective” (EPA's 2005 Cancer Guidelines, pages 1-7). This is the approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs.

Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk. That is, they represent a “plausible upper limit to the true value of a quantity” (although this is usually not a true statistical confidence limit).12 In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.13 Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To derive dose-response values that are intended to be “without appreciable risk,” the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor (UF) approach (U.S. EPA, 1993 and 1994) which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of deleterious effects.

Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.

Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and widespread.

Although every effort is made to identify appropriate human health effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by this source category are lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk, we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions, including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control options.

For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly, for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds in the group to estimate risk.

In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of humans at the location of the maximum concentration. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and worst-case meteorological conditions co-occur, thus, resulting in maximum ambient concentrations. These two events are unlikely to occur at the same time, making these assumptions conservative. We then include the additional assumption that a person is located at this point during this same time period. For this source category, these assumptions would tend to be worst-case actual exposures as it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and worst-case meteorological conditions occur simultaneously.

The inhalation risk modeling performed to estimate risks based on actual and allowable emissions relied primarily on emissions data gathered through questionnaires provided during two recent site visits conducted by the EPA. The EPA discussed specific FMM processes with authorized representatives of both facilities, including quantity and size of solvent mixers at each site and associated emission points, process controls, monitors, unregulated emissions, and other aspects of facility operations.

The results of the chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk assessment indicate that, based on estimates of current actual and allowable emissions under 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ, the MIR posed by the source category is less than 1-in-1 million. The total estimated cancer incidence based on actual emission levels is 0.000005 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 200,000 years. The total estimated cancer incidence based on allowable emission levels is 0.00004 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 25,000 years. Air emissions of formaldehyde contributed 100 percent to this cancer incidence. The population exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million considering actual and allowable emissions is 0 (see Table 2 of this preamble).

The maximum modeled chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) values for the source category based on actual and allowable emissions are estimated to be 0.01 and 0.02, respectively, with n-hexane emissions from large solvent mixers accounting for 100 percent of the HI.

Our screening analysis for worst-case acute impacts based on actual emissions indicates no pollutants exceeding an HQ value of 1 based upon the REL. The acute hourly multiplier utilized a default factor of 10 for all emission processes.

We did not identify any PB-HAP emissions from this source category. Therefore, we estimate that there is no multipathway risk from HAP emissions from this source category.

We did not identify any PB-HAP or acid gas emissions from this source category. We are unaware of any adverse environmental effect caused by emissions of HAP that are emitted by the FMM source category. Therefore, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category.

Considering facility-wide emissions at the two plants, the MIR is estimated to be 5-in-1 million driven by hexavalent chromium emissions, and the chronic noncancer TOSHI value is calculated to be <1 driven by emissions of nickel and hexavalent chromium (see Table 2 of this preamble). The above cancer and noncancer risks are driven by emissions from a miscellaneous industrial process that was not able to be classified.

Approximately 2,300 people are estimated to have cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million considering whole facility emissions from the two facilities in the source category (see Table 2 of this preamble).

To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the FMM source category across different demographic groups within the populations living near the two facilities.14

Results of the demographic analysis indicate that, for 3 of the 11 demographic groups, Native American, ages 0-17, and below the poverty level, the percentage of the population living within 5 km of facilities in the source category is greater than the corresponding national percentage for the same demographic groups. When examining the risk levels of those exposed to emissions from FMM facilities, we find that no one is exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1.

The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, “Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities,” available in the docket for this action.

As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) using “a two-step standard-setting approach, with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand.” (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989).

In this proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable emissions from the FMM source category. As discussed above, we consider our analysis of risk from allowable emissions to be conservative in the sense of possibly over-estimating HAP emissions and their associated risks.

The inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from sources in the FMM source category is less than 1-in-1 million, based on actual emissions. The estimated incidence of cancer due to inhalation exposure is 0.000005 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case in 200,000 years, based on actual emissions. For allowable emissions, we also estimate that the inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from sources in this source category is less than 1-in-1 million. The estimated incidence of cancer due to inhalation exposure is 0.00004 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 25,000 years, based on allowable emissions.

The Agency estimates that the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI from inhalation exposure is 0.01 due to actual emissions and 0.02 due to allowable emissions. The screening assessment of worst-case acute inhalation impacts from worst-case 1-hour emissions indicates that no HAP exceed an acute HQ of 1.

Since no PB-HAP are emitted by this source category, a multipathway risk assessment was not warranted. We did not identify emissions of any of the seven environmental HAP included in our environmental risk screening assessment, and we are unaware of any adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by this source category. Therefore, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category.

In determining whether risk is acceptable, the EPA considered all available health information and risk estimation uncertainty, as described above. The results indicate that both the actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are less than 1-in-1 million, well below the presumptive limit of acceptability of 100-in-1 million. The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI due to inhalation exposures is less than 1 for actual and allowable emissions. Finally, the evaluation of acute noncancer risks was conservative and showed that acute risks are below a level of concern.

Taking into account this information, the EPA proposes that the risk remaining after implementation of the existing MACT standards for the FMM source category is acceptable.

Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures (including the controls, measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be applied in this source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP, considering all of the health risks and other health information considered in the risk acceptability determination described above. In this analysis, we considered the results of the technology review, risk assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule review to determine whether there are any cost-effective controls or other measures that would reduce emissions further and would be necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.

Our risk analysis indicated the risks from the FMM source category are low for both cancer and noncancer health effects, and, therefore, any risk reductions from further available control options would result in minimal health benefits. The options identified include a permanent total enclosure and incinerator (PTEI), which is currently used at Knowlton Technologies, LLC, (Knowlton uses a boiler to function as an incinerator for HAP) and a non-solvent process/reformulation, which is used at RFPC. A combination of the two technologies is not considered to be a realistic control option because a PTEI would not add any additional HAP control if a non-solvent process is used. Therefore, we did not analyze such a combined technology option. We also note that non-solvent process/reformulation is not yet demonstrated for all products, and, therefore, cannot be broadly assumed to be feasible to require. The estimated capital cost to install a PTEI at RFPC using a solvent condenser is $1,612,105, and the estimated annual cost to operate the system is $837,745. We estimate that the PTEI option would achieve a HAP reduction of 228 tons, with a cost effectiveness of $3,700 dollars per ton. The resultant risk reduction would be minimal because the estimated risks are already below levels of concern. A detailed cost breakdown can be found in the memorandum, “Calculated Cost of PTEI,” which is located in the docket for this rulemaking.

Cost estimates for installing and operating a non-solvent process/reformulation are based on costs received from RFPC. The mixer and downstream material processing equipment's estimated total capital investment was $2,073,430. Annual cost of operation is approximately $125,000 for electrical cost and $75,000 for maintenance. For more information, see the memorandum, “Email Correspondence for the Cost of Non-Solvent Mixer RFPC,” which is available in the docket for this rulemaking. We do not have information that this technology could be applied to other production lines with specific product formulations and performance requirements, and, therefore, we determined that this is not a broadly applicable control that is appropriate for consideration under ample margin of safety. We do note, however, that if the technology could be applied to other productions lines, the resultant risk reduction would be minimal because the estimated risks are already below levels of concern for the industry.

Due to the low level of current risk, the minimal risk reductions that could be achieved with the various control options that we evaluated, and the substantial costs associated with each of the additional control options, as well as the natural progression of industry to move away from HAP containing solvents as acceptable non-HAP formulations are developed, we are proposing that additional emission controls are not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety.

We did not identify emissions of any of the seven environmental HAP included in our environmental risk screening, and we are unaware of any adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by this source category. Therefore, we do not expect adverse environmental effects as a result of HAP emissions from this source category and we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.

In order to fulfill our obligations under CAA section 112(d)(6), we conducted a technology review to identify developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that reduce HAP emissions and to consider whether the current standards should be revised to reflect any such developments. In conducting our technology review, we utilized the RBLC database, reviewed title V permits for each FMM facility, and reviewed regulatory actions related to emissions controls at similar sources that could be applicable to FMM.

After reviewing information from the sources above, we identified the following developments in control technologies for further evaluation: PTEI, and non-solvent process/reformulation, i.e., the same options we considered for possible ample margin of safety options, discussed above. After identifying options for reducing emissions from FMM, we then evaluated the feasibility, costs, and emissions reductions associated with each of the technologies. Additional information about this determination is documented in the memorandum, “Technology Review for the Friction Materials Manufacturing Source Category,” which is available in the docket for this action.

We evaluated the cost of installing a PTEI at RFPC (currently operating a solvent recovery system). The total capital investment for installing a PTEI is described in the Ample Margin of Safety Analysis (section IV.B.2) above. Overall, the estimated cost effectiveness of installing and operating a PTEI is approximately $3,700 per ton of hexane reduced. Furthermore, use of an incinerator would result in increased energy usage and nitrogen oxide emissions. Considering the associated cost per ton of hexane reduction and increased nitrogen oxide emissions associated with the operation of an incinerator, we did not find potentially requiring this technology to be cost effective or necessary under CAA section 112(d)(6).

RFPC is also in the process of removing HAP solvent from its production process. It is accomplishing this through the utilization of a non-solvent process/reformulation. This process change would eventually eliminate the need for HAP solvents and their associated emissions. The ability to use a non-solvent process/reformulation depends primarily on each facility's ability to successfully reformulate products while still meeting the required specifications. Therefore, a change that may be used successfully to reduce HAP emissions at one facility may not work for another facility or for all products at the same facility. We do not consider this process change to be a feasible regulatory alternative or necessary under CAA section 112(d)(6).

Based on the results of the technology review, we conclude, and propose to find, that changes to the FMM emissions limits pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) are not necessary. We solicit comment on our proposed decision.

In addition to the proposed determinations described above, we are proposing some revisions to the rule. We are proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent with the Court's decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM.

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously.

We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ (the General Provisions Applicability Table), as explained in more detail below. For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further described below.

The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on whether we have successfully done so.

In proposing to make the current standards in the rule applicable during SSM periods, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods. The two FMM facilities subject to this rulemaking run their associated control technologies during all periods of operation, including startup and shutdown, allowing them to comply with the emissions standards at all times. The EPA has no reason to believe that emissions are significantly different during periods of startup and shutdown from those during normal operations.

Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, processes, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) (definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level “achieved” by the best controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation “achieved” by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level “achieved” by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase “average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of” sources “says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.” Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operation of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a “normal or usual manner” and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section 112 standards.

As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for malfunctions in setting numerical or work practice standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in a category and given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (“the EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of circumstances.”). As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not “reasonably” foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (“The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to `invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.' ”). See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (“In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.”). In addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.

Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review, the EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events because the EPA had information to determine that such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to the best performing sources. 80 FR 75178, 75211-14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant setting work practice standards for a particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such information.

In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112 standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with the CAA section 112 standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).

If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate.

In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).

We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the “yes” in column “Applies to subpart QQQQQ?” to a “no.” Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.9505 that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing at 40 CFR 63.9505(a) and (c) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).

We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the “yes” in column “Applies to subpart QQQQQ?” to a “no.” Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.9505.

We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the “yes” in column “Applies to subpart QQQQQ?” to a “no.” Generally, these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.

We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the “yes” in column “Applies to subpart QQQQQ?” to a “no.” The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.

We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the “yes” in column “Applies to subpart QQQQQ?” to a “no.” The cross-references to the general duty and SSM plan requirements in those paragraphs are not necessary in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)).

We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the “yes” in column “Applies to subpart QQQQQ?” to a “no.” Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.

We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the “yes” in column “Applies to subpart QQQQQ?” to a “no.” Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing to add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.9545. The regulatory text we are proposing to add differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions requires the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment. The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to any failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the “occurrence.” The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.9545 a requirement that sources keep records that include a list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard.

We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the “yes” in column “Applies to subpart QQQQQ?” to a “no.” When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.9545(a)(2).

We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the “yes” in column “Applies to subpart QQQQQ?” to a “no.” When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.

We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the “yes” in column “Applies to subpart QQQQQ?” to a “no.” Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.9540(b)(4). The replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning such events in the semi-annual compliance report already required under this rule. We are proposing that the report must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source(s) or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.

Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard.

We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, because such plans will no longer be required. The proposed amendments, therefore, eliminate the cross reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.

We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) by changing the “yes” in column “Applies to subpart QQQQQ?” to a “no.” Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startup, shutdown, and malfunctions when a source fails to meet an applicable standard, but does not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require owners and operators to report when actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan, because such plans will no longer be required.

The EPA is proposing that existing affected sources and affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before May 3, 2018 must comply with all of the amendments no later than 180 days after the effective date of the final rule. (The final action is not expected to be a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10)). For existing sources, we are proposing a change that would impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar industries shows that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments; and to update their operations to reflect the revised requirements. From our assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable, and, thus, is proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with this regulation's revised requirements within 180 days of the regulation's effective date. We solicit comment on this proposed compliance period, and we specifically request submission of information from sources in this source category regarding specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with them. We note that information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance date. Affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after May 3, 2018 must comply with all requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being proposed, no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later. All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current requirements of subpart QQQQQ until the applicable compliance date of the amended rule.

We anticipate that two FMM facilities currently operating in the United States will be affected by these proposed amendments. The basis of our estimate of affected facilities are provided in the memorandum, “Identification of Major Sources for the NESHAP for Friction Materials Manufacturing,” which is available in the docket for this action. We are not currently aware of any planned or potential new or reconstructed FMM facilities.

We do not anticipate that the proposed amendments to this subpart will impact air quality.

The two existing FMM facilities that would be subject to the proposed amendments would incur a net cost savings due to revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Nationwide annual net cost savings associated with the proposed requirements are estimated to be $7,358 in 2016 dollars. For further information on the costs and cost savings associated with the requirements being proposed, see the memorandum, “FMM Economic Impacts Memo,” and the document, “Friction Materials Manufacturing 2018 Supporting Statement,” which are both available in the docket for this action. We solicit comment on these estimated cost impacts.

As noted earlier, the nationwide annual net cost savings associated with the revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements are estimated to be $7,358 per year. The equivalent annualized value (in 2016 dollars) of these net cost savings over 2019 through 2027 is $6,461 per year when costs are discounted at a 7-percent rate, and $7,381 per year when costs are discounted at a 3-percent rate. This cost savings is not expected to result in changes to business operations, or result in a significant price change of products.

As discussed above, we do not anticipate the proposed amendments to this subpart to impact air quality.

We solicit comments on all aspects of this proposed action. In addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any information that improves the quality and quantity of data used in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more information on submitting data.

The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for download on the RTR website at http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.

If you believe that the data are not representative or are inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason for concern, and provide any available “improved” data. When you submit data, we request that you provide documentation of the basis for any revised values. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the RTR website, complete the following steps:

1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the data fields appropriate for that information.

2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).

3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions (e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).

4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in Microsoft® Access format and all accompanying documentation to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0358 (through the method described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble).

5. Whether you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple facilities, you need only submit one file. The file should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility (or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft® Excel files that are generated by the Microsoft® Access file. These files are provided on the RTR website at http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to OMB for review.

This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2025.08. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.

We are proposing changes to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ, in the form of eliminating the SSM plan and reporting requirements, and increasing reporting requirements for the semiannual report of deviation. We also recalculated the estimated recordkeeping burden for records of SSM to more accurately represent the removal of the SSM exemption, which is discussed in more detail in the memorandum, “Email Correspondence estimating the cost of SSM reporting with Knowlton Technologies, LLC.”

Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are owners or operators of facilities that produce friction products subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ).

Estimated number of respondents: Two facilities.

Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.

Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting burden for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be 535 hours (per year). Of these, 115 hours (per year) is the reduced burden to comply with the proposed rule amendments. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be $35,200 (rounded, per year), including $544 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. This results in a decrease of $7,400 (rounded, per year) to comply with the proposed amendments to the rule.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than June 4, 2018. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. There are no small entities in this regulated industry.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in the friction material manufacturing industry that would be affected by this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in sections III.A and IV.A and B of this preamble.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards. However, the Agency identified no such standards. Therefore, the EPA has decided to continue the use of the weighing procedures based on EPA Method 28 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A (section 10.1) for weighing of recovered solvent. A thorough summary of the search conducted and results are included in the memorandum titled “Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities Residual Risk and Technology Review,” which is available in the docket for this action.

The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of this preamble and the technical report, “Friction Materials Manufacturing Demographic Analysis,” which is available in the docket for this action.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The revisions and additions read as follows: