Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0089-0005
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-03-09T05:00Z

1
6560­
50­
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
51,
52,
70,
and
71
[
FRL
­
______,
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2006­
0089]

RIN
2060­
_______

Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration,
Nonattainment
New
Source
Review,
and
Title
V:
Treatment
of
Corn
Milling
Facilities
Under
the
"
Major
Emitting
Facility"
Definition
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).

ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
The
EPA
has
treated
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
differently
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA
or
Act)
depending
on
whether
the
facilities
in
question
produce
ethanol
fuel
or
ethanol
fit
for
human
consumption.
In
particular,
EPA
has
applied
different
major
source
size
cut
offs
to
these
facilities
under
the
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
(
PSD)
program
based
on
the
product
these
facilities
produced.

Additionally,
when
the
list
of
source
categories
relative
to
the
definition
of
"
major
emitting
facility"
was
first
promulgated
on
August
7,
1980,
this
same
list
was
promulgated
in
the
same
final
regulatory
package
for
determining
from
which
source
categories
fugitive
emissions
were
to
be
counted
in
determining
whether
a
source
is
a
major
source.
As
a
result,
although
two
of
the
regulatory
changes
being
proposed
today
address
the
major
source
threshold
for
PSD
sources,
the
remaining
proposed
regulatory
changes
address
when
fugitive
emissions
are
counted
for
purposes
of
determining
whether
a
source
is
a
major
source
under
the
PSD,
nonattainment
New
Source
Review
(
NSR),
or
title
V
programs.
2
In
today's
action,
we
are
requesting
public
comment
on
two
options
under
consideration
by
EPA
with
respect
to
corn
milling
facilities.
Under
Option
1,
EPA
would
treat
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
in
the
same
manner
under
the
PSD,
nonattainment
NSR,
and
title
V
programs
regardless
of
whether
they
produce
ethanol
fuel
or
ethanol
fit
for
human
consumption.
If
EPA
adopts
Option
1,
EPA
would
redefine
chemical
process
plants
under
the
definition
of
"
major
emitting
facility"
to
exclude
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel.
Under
Option
2,
EPA
would
retain
the
current
distinction
between
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
under
these
regulatory
programs
based
on
whether
they
produce
ethanol
fuel
or
ethanol
fit
for
human
consumption.
The
EPA's
preferred
option
is
Option
1.
We
are
requesting
comment
on
these
two
options
and
on
the
revisions
that
we
propose
to
make
if
we
adopt
Option
1.

DATES:
Comments.
Comments
must
be
received
on
or
before
[
INSERT
DATE
60
DAYS
AFTER
PUBLICATION
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER.]

Public
Hearing.
If
anyone
contacts
us
requesting
to
speak
at
a
public
hearing
[
INSERT
20
DAYS
AFTER
PUBLICATION
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER],
we
will
hold
a
public
hearing
approximately
30
days
after
publication
in
the
Federal
Register.

ADDRESSES:
Submit
your
comments,
identified
by
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­

2006­
0089
by
one
of
the
following
methods:

°
www.
regulations.
gov:
Follow
the
on­
line
instructions
for
submitting
comments.

°
Fax:
202­
566­
1741.

°
Mail:
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2006­
0089,
U.
S.

Environmental
Protection
Agency,
EPA
West
(
Air
Docket),
1200
3
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
Northwest,
B102,
Mail
code
6102T,
Washington,

DC
20460.
Please
include
a
total
of
2
copies.

°
Hand
Delivery:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
EPA
West
(
Air
Docket),
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
Northwest,
Room
B102,
Washington,

DC
20004,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2006­
0089.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
Docket's
normal
hours
of
operation,

and
special
arrangements
should
be
made
for
deliveries
of
boxed
information.

Instructions:
Direct
your
comments
to
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2006­
0089.

EPA's
policy
is
that
all
comments
received
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
without
change
and
may
be
made
available
online
at
www.
regulations.
gov,
including
any
personal
information
provided,
unless
the
comment
includes
information
claimed
to
be
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.

Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
or
otherwise
protected
through
EDOCKET,
regulations.
gov,
or
e­
mail.
The
www.
regulations.
gov
website
is
an
A
anonymous
access
@

systems,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity
or
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
EPA
without
going
through
www.
regulations.
gov,
your
e­
mail
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,
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
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
4
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.
Electronic
files
should
avoid
the
use
of
special
characters,
any
form
of
encryption,
and
be
free
of
any
defects
or
viruses.
For
additional
information
about
EPA
=

s
public
docket
visit
the
EPA
Docket
Center
homepage
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epahome/
dockets.
htm.
For
additional
instructions
on
submitting
comments,
please
see
section
B.
of
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section
of
this
document.

Docket:
All
documents
in
the
docket
are
listed
in
the
www.
regulations.
gov
index.

Although
listed
in
the
index,
some
information
is
not
publicly
available,
i.
e.,
CBI
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
Certain
other
material,
such
as
copyrighted
material,
is
not
placed
on
the
Internet
and
will
be
publicly
available
only
in
hard
copy
form.
Publicly
available
docket
materials
are
available
either
electronically
in
www.
regulations.
gov
or
in
hard
copy
at
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
EPA
West
(
Air
Docket),
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
Northwest,
B102,
Mail
code:
6102T,

Washington,
DC
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2006­
0089,

Washington,
DC
20004].
This
Docket
Facility
and
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
HQ­
OAR­
2006­
0089
is
(
202)
566­
1742.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Ms.
Joanna
Swanson,
(
C339­
03),
Air
Quality
Policy
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Research
Triangle
Park,

NC
27711,
telephone
number:
(
919)
541­
5282;
fax
number
:
(
919)
541­
5509,
or
electronic
mail
at
swanson.
joanna@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
5
I.
General
Information
A.
What
are
the
regulated
entities?

Entities
potentially
affected
by
the
subject
rule
for
today
=

s
action
include
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
and
industrial
ethyl
alcohol
production.

Industry
Group
SICa
NAICSb
Wet
Corn
Milling
2046
311221
Industrial
Organic
Chemicals
(
Ethyl
Alcohol)
2869
325193
a
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
1987)

b
North
American
Industry
Classification
System.
Entities
potentially
affected
by
the
subject
rule
for
today
=

s
action
also
include
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments.

B.
How
Should
I
submit
CBI
to
the
Agency?

1.
Submitting
CBI.
Do
not
submit
this
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
electronically
through
www.
regulations.
gov
or
e­
mail.
Clearly
mark
the
part
or
all
of
the
information
that
you
claim
to
be
CBI.
For
CBI
information
in
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
EPA,
mark
the
CD
ROM
the
specific
information
that
is
claimed
as
CBI.
In
addition
to
one
complete
version
of
the
comment
that
includes
information
claimed
as
CBI,
a
copy
of
the
comment
that
does
not
contain
the
information
claimed
as
CBI
must
be
submitted
for
inclusion
in
the
public
docket.
Information
so
marked
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2.
Also,
send
an
additional
copy
clearly
marked
as
above
not
only
to
the
Air
docket
but
to:
Roberto
Morales,
c/
o
OAQPS
Document
Control
Officer,
(
C339­
03),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
6
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2006­
0089.

C.
What
Should
I
Consider
as
I
prepare
My
Comments
for
EPA?

When
submitting
comments,
remember
to:

i.
Identify
the
rulemaking
by
docket
number
and
other
identifying
information
(
subject
heading,
Federal
Register
date
and
page
number).

ii.
Follow
directions
­
The
agency
may
ask
you
to
respond
to
specific
questions
or
organize
comments
by
referencing
a
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(
CFR)
part
or
section
number.

iii.
Explain
why
you
agree
or
disagree;
suggest
alternatives
and
substitute
language
for
your
requested
changes.

iv.
Describe
any
assumptions
and
provide
any
technical
information
and/
or
data
that
you
used.

v.
If
you
estimate
potential
costs
or
burdens,
explain
how
you
arrived
at
your
estimate
in
sufficient
detail
to
allow
for
it
to
be
reproduced.

vi.
Provide
specific
examples
to
illustrate
your
concerns,
and
suggest
alternatives.

vii.
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible,
avoiding
the
use
of
profanity
or
personal
threats.

viii.
Make
sure
to
submit
your
comments
by
the
comment
period
deadline
identified.

D.
How
Can
I
Find
Information
About
a
Possible
Public
Hearing?

Persons
interested
in
presenting
oral
testimony
should
contact
Mrs.
Pamela
S.

Long,
Air
Quality
Division
(
C339­
03),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Research
7
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
telephone
number
(
919)
541­
0641,
at
least
2
days
in
advance
of
the
public
hearing.
Persons
interested
in
attending
the
public
hearing
should
also
contact
Mrs.
Long
to
verify
the
time,
date,
and
location
of
the
hearing.
The
public
hearing
will
provide
interested
parties
the
opportunity
to
present
data,
views,
or
arguments
concerning
these
proposed
changes.

E.
How
is
this
preamble
organized?

The
information
presented
in
this
preamble
is
organized
as
follows:

General
Information
A.
What
are
the
regulated
entities?
B.
How
should
I
submit
CBI
material
to
the
Agency?
C.
What
should
I
consider
as
I
prepare
my
comments
for
EPA?
D.
How
can
I
find
information
about
a
possible
public
hearing?
E.
How
is
this
preamble
organized?
II.
Background
A.
What
is
the
history
of
the
term
"
major
emitting
facility"?
B.
What
is
the
basis
for
the
source
categories
listed
in
the
definition
of
"
major
emitting
facility"
in
section
169(
1)
of
the
Act?
C.
What
is
the
connection
between
source
categories
regulated
by
NSPS
and
source
categories
listed
in
the
definition
of
"
major
emitting
facility"
in
section
169(
1)
of
the
Act?
D.
How
was
the
chemical
process
plants
source
category
addressed
in
the
NSPS
Study?
E.
How
have
ethanol
production
facilities
been
considered
under
the
PSD
Program?
F.
What
additional
changes
are
being
proposed
for
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities?
III.
Today's
Proposed
Rule
A.
What
is
being
proposed?
B.
What
are
the
implications
of
changing
the
classification
of
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel
as
a
result
of
the
wet
or
dry
milling
process?
C.
What
are
the
implications
of
not
changing
the
classification
for
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel
as
a
result
of
the
dry
or
wet
milling
process?
IV.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866
­
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
E.
Executive
Order
13132
­
Federalism
8
F.
Executive
Order
13175
­
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
G.
Executive
Order
13045
­
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
H.
Executive
Order
13211
­
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
II.
Background
The
NSR
program
legislated
by
Congress
in
parts
C
and
D
of
title
I
of
the
Act
is
a
preconstruction
review
and
permitting
program
applicable
to
new
or
modified
major
stationary
sources
of
air
pollutants
regulated
under
the
Act.
In
areas
not
meeting
healthbased
NAAQS
and
in
ozone
transport
regions
(
OTR),
the
program
is
implemented
under
the
requirements
of
part
D
of
title
I
of
the
Act
for
``
nonattainment''
NSR.

In
areas
meeting
NAAQS
(``
attainment''
areas)
or
for
which
there
is
insufficient
information
to
determine
whether
they
meet
the
NAAQS
(``
unclassifiable''
areas),
the
NSR
requirements
for
the
prevention
of
significant
deterioration
of
air
quality
under
part
C
of
title
I
of
the
Act
apply.
The
NSR
regulations
are
contained
in
40
CFR
51.165,

51.166,
52.21,
52.24,
and
Appendix
S
of
part
51.

The
Act,
as
implemented
by
our
regulations,
sets
applicability
thresholds
for
major
sources
in
attainment
areas
(
100
or
250
tons
per
year
(
tpy)
depending
on
the
source
type)

and
nonattainment
areas
(
100
tpy
or
less,
depending
on
the
nonattainment
classification).

A
new
source
with
a
potential
to
emit
(
PTE)
at
or
above
the
applicable
threshold
amount
``
triggers,''
or
is
subject
to,
major
NSR.
To
determine
whether
a
source
is
subject
to
a
100
or
a
250
tpy
threshold
for
purposes
of
determining
whether
it
is
a
"
major
emitting
facility,"
section
169(
1)
of
the
Act
contains
a
definition
of
major
emitting
facility.
9
Title
V
of
the
CAA
required
EPA
to
promulgate
regulations
governing
the
establishment
of
operating
permits
programs.
The
current
regulations
are
codified
at
40
CFR
parts
70
and
71.
All
major
sources,
as
that
term
is
defined
for
title
V
purposes,
are
required
to
obtain
title
V
operating
permits.
Sources
required
to
obtain
title
V
permits
also
include
those
sources
subject
to
PSD
and
nonattainment
NSR.
Therefore,
title
V
relies
in
part
on
the
definition
of
major
emitting
facility
for
the
PSD
program
and
any
change
to
this
definition
under
this
program
could
affect
whether
a
source
is
required
to
obtain
a
title
V
permit.

A.
What
is
the
history
of
the
term
"
major
emitting
facility"?

On
August
7,
1977,
the
President
signed
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1977
(
1977
Amendments)
into
law.
Those
amendments
established,
in
Part
C
of
Title
I
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
the
Act
or
CAA),
a
set
of
requirements
for
the
prevention
of
significant
deterioration
(
PSD)
of
air
quality
in
so­
called
"
clean
air,"
or
attainment,
areas.
See
sections
160­
69,
42
U.
S.
C.
7470­
79.
As
part
of
these
amendments,
the
major
emitting
facility
definition
in
section
169(
1)
was
added
to
the
CAA.
The
definition
of
major
emitting
facility
as
incorporated
into
section
169(
1)
of
the
1977
Amendments
reads
as
follows:

The
term
`
major
emitting
facility'
means
any
of
the
following
stationary
sources
of
air
pollutants
which
emit,
or
have
the
potential
to
emit1,
one
hundred
tons
per
year
or
more
of
any
air
pollutant
from
the
following
types
of
stationary
sources:
fossil­
fuel
fired
steam
electric
plants
of
more
than
two
hundred
and
fifty
million
British
thermal
units
per
hour
heat
input,
coal
cleaning
plants
(
thermal
dryers),
kraft
pulp
mills,
Portland
Cement
plants,

1
Under
the
PSD
program,
we
define
potential
to
emit
(
PTE)
as
the
maximum
capacity
of
a
source
to
emit
under
its
physical
and
operational
design,
taking
into
account
any
physical
or
operational
limitations
on
the
source
that
are
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter.
(
See,
for
example,
§
52.21(
b)(
4)
for
the
full
definition
of
PTE.)
10
primary
zinc
smelters,
iron
and
steel
mill
plants,
primary
aluminum
ore
reduction
plants,
primary
copper
smelters,
municipal
incinerators
capable
of
charging
more
than
two
hundred
and
fifty
tons
of
refuse
per
day,
hydrofluoric,
sulfuric,
and
nitric
acid
plants,
petroleum
refineries,
lime
plants,
phosphate
rock
processing
plants,
coke
oven
batteries,
sulfur
recovery
plants,
carbon
black
plants
(
furnace
process),
primary
lead
smelters,
fuel
conversion
plants,
sintering
plants,
secondary
metal
production
facilities,
chemical
process
plants,
fossil­
fuel
boilers
of
more
than
two
hundred
and
fifty
million
British
thermal
units
per
hour
heat
input,
petroleum
storage
and
transfer
facilities
with
a
capacity
exceeding
three
hundred
thousand
barrels,
taconite
ore
processing
facilities,
glass
fiber
processing
plants,
charcoal
production
facilities.
Such
term
also
includes
any
other
source
with
the
potential
to
emit
two
hundred
and
fifty
tons
per
year
or
more
of
any
air
pollutant.
This
term
shall
not
include
new
or
modified
facilities
which
are
nonprofit
health
or
education
institutions
which
have
been
exempted
by
the
State.

The
source
categories
established
in
the
above
definition
have
wide
applicability
under
the
major
New
Source
Review
(
NSR)
and
Title
V
operating
permits
programs.
Although
the
above
definition
includes
a
number
of
source
categories,
it
is
the
history
and
definition
of
the
chemical
process
plants
source
category
that
we
will
be
examining
relative
to
the
production
of
ethanol
by
wet
or
dry
corn
milling
(
also
known
as
wet
or
dry
milling)
in
this
proposal.

B.
What
is
the
basis
for
the
source
categories
listed
in
the
definition
of
"
major
emitting
facility"
in
section
169(
1)
of
the
Act?

Section
111
of
the
Act
requires
the
Administrator
of
EPA
to
establish
Federal
4
The
Research
Corp.
of
New
England
draft
study
mentioned
in
the
Congressional
record
was
a
study
developed
to
assist
EPA
in
establishing
the
priorities
for
developing
and
promulgating
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(
NSPS).
Although
a
draft
of
the
study
is
referenced
in
the
Congressional
Record,
the
study
entitled
"
Impact
of
New
Source
Performance
Standards
on
1985
National
Emissions
from
Stationary
Sources"
wasn't
finalized
until
April,
1977
(
EPA­
450/
3­
76­
017).
11
standards
of
performance
for
new
stationary
sources
which
may
significantly
contribute
to
air
pollution
and
was
intended
by
Congress
to
complement
the
other
air
quality
management
approaches
authorized
by
the
1970
Act.
After
enactment
of
section
111,

EPA
hired
Research
Corporation
of
New
England
(
Research
Corp.)
to
study
stationary
sources
of
air
pollution
in
order
to
establish
priorities
for
developing
and
promulgating
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(
NSPS).
Because
of
limited
resources,
EPA
could
not
feasibly
set
NSPS
requirements
for
all
categories
of
stationary
sources
simultaneously.

Therefore,
the
goal
of
the
Research
Corp.
study
was
to
identify
sources
for
which
NSPS
controls
would
have
the
greatest
impact
on
reducing
the
quantity
of
atmospheric
emissions.
Research
Corp.
examined
approximately
190
different
types
of
stationary
combustion
sources
that
potentially
could
be
determined
to
be
major
emitting
facilities,

and
provided
information
on
the
types
of
air
pollutants
that
those
sources
emitted.
The
Research
Corp.
study
was
used
by
EPA
in
setting
priorities
for
the
order
in
which
it
would
promulgate
NSPS
requirements
for
categories
of
stationary
sources.

The
Research
Corp.
study
was
also
relied
on
by
Congress
in
identifying
the
28
categories
of
stationary
sources
specifically
listed
in
the
definition
of
the
term
"
major
emitting
facility"
in
section
169(
1)
of
the
Act.
122
Cong.
Rec.
24,520­
23
(
1976).
As
explained
by
Senator
McClure
in
the
Congressional
Record,
the
EPA
Administrator
examined
the
data
from
the
draft
Research
Corp.
study
and
determined
that
19
of
the
stationary
source
categories
examined
should
initially
be
classified
as
major
emitting
facilities.
Senator
McClure
further
explained
that
the
Senate
Committee
added
nine
more
categories
of
stationary
sources
to
the
19
selected
by
EPA
for
a
total
of
28
source
categories.
122
Cong.
Rec.
at
24,5214.
12
In
discussing
the
specific
sources
identified
in
section
169(
1),
Senator
McClure
stated:

Mr.
President,
I
ask
unanimous
consent
that
an
extract
from
that
report
of
the
Research
Corp.
of
New
England,
listing
the
190
types
of
sources,
from
which
the
EPA
took
19,
and
the
committee
took
28,
be
printed
in
the
Record
at
this
point
as
an
illustration
of
what
the
committee
examined
and
the
kinds
of
sources
the
committee
intended
to
include
and
exclude,
recognizing
that
it
is
neither
exclusive
nor
invariable.
There
is
administrative
discretion
to
add
to
the
list,
to
change
the
list.
But
the
committee
spoke
very
clearly
on
its
intent
on
that
question.

122
Cong.
Rec.
at
24,521
(
1976).
As
a
result
of
Senator
McClure's
action,
the
table
from
the
draft
Research
Corp.
of
New
England
report
containing
the
list
of
190
types
of
sources
was
printed
in
the
Congressional
Record.

C.
How
was
the
chemical
process
plants
source
category
addressed
in
the
Research
Corp.
NSPS
Study?

The
approximately
190
source
categories
identified
in
Research
Corporation's
report
were
further
classified
into
ten
general
groups
for
purposes
of
the
study
 
stationary
combustion
sources,
chemical
processing
industries,
food
and
agricultural
industries,

mineral
products
industries,
metallurgical
industries,
and
miscellaneous
sources
(
evaporation
losses,
petroleum
industry,
wood
products
industry,
and
assembly
plants).

For
the
chemical
process
industry
grouping,
the
Research
Corp.
study
considered
24
different
source
categories
and
their
associated
pollutants.
Notably,
within
the
chemical
process
industry
listings
in
the
1977
final
report
and
in
the
1976
draft
report
(
as
incorporated
into
the
Congressional
Record)
there
is
no
listing
which
refers
to
ethanol
production,
ethanol
fuel
production,
or
corn
milling
operations.
Of
course,
it
is
worth
noting
that
although
the
first
U.
S.
ethanol
fuel
plant
was
built
by
the
U.
S.
Army
in
the
1940'
s,
few,
if
any,
ethanol
fuel
production
facilities
existed
in
the
mid
to
late
1970'
s.
13
Thus,
at
the
time
that
Congress
drafted
section
169(
1),
for
which
it
appears
to
have
relied
on
the
draft
Research
Corp.
study
developed
for
NSPS
purposes,
plants
producing
ethanol
were
not
listed
among
the
types
of
facilities
that
fell
within
the
category
for
chemical
processing
industries.

D.
How
have
ethanol
production
facilities
been
considered
under
the
PSD
Program?

In
addition
to
the
term
"
major
emitting
facility"
addressing
sources
within
specified
source
categories
which
emit,
or
have
the
potential
to
emit,
100
tons
per
year
or
more
of
any
air
pollutant,
this
term
also
establishes
a
potential
to
emit
threshold
of
250
tons
per
year
or
more
of
any
air
pollutant
for
sources
which
fall
outside
of
the
source
categories
specified
in
section
169(
1)
of
the
Act.
Thus,
for
new
sources
which
are
locating
in
attainment
areas,
the
applicable
major
source
threshold
under
the
PSD
program
will
be
either
100
tons
per
year
for
sources
in
one
of
the
source
categories
specifically
listed
in
section
169(
1),
or
250
tons
per
year
for
all
other
sources.
For
new
sources
located
in
nonattainment
areas,
the
applicable
thresholds
for
the
nonattainment
pollutants
will
depend
on
the
nonattainment
area's
status.
For
operating
sources
in
attainment
areas,
the
relevant
major
source
threshold
under
title
V
is
100
tons
per
year,
but
is
lowered
in
nonattainment
areas
for
the
relevant
pollutant.

In
its
August
7,
1980,
rulemaking,
EPA
decided
to
use
the
2­
digit
"
Major
Group"

listings
as
defined
by
the
SIC
manual
of
1972
(
as
amended
in
1977)
5
as
its
basis
for
defining
a
source
under
PSD
and
nonattainment
NSR.
Thus,
to
determine
which
source
5
The
version
of
the
SIC
code
manual
that
is
used
for
purposes
of
classifying
sources
under
the
title
V
operating
permits
is
the
1987
SIC
Manual.
See,
e.
g.,
the
definition
of
"
Major
Source"
in
40
CFR
70.2.
However,
there
are
no
differences
between
these
manuals
in
terms
of
how
wet
corn
milling
facilities
and
facilities
which
produce
"
ethanol,
14
category
a
source
belongs
to,
and
therefore
what
major
source
thresholds
apply,
EPA
determines
which
2­
digit
"
Major
Group"
code
applies
to
the
source.
These
classifications
are
based
on
the
source's
primary
activity,
which
is
determined
by
the
source's
principal
product(
s)
 
either
produced
or
distributed
 
or
services
rendered.
(
August
7,
1980,
45
FR
52676,
52694).

It
is
important
to
note
that
the
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
manual
was
not
designed
for
regulatory
application,
but
was
developed
primarily
for
the
collection
of
economic
statistics
and
for
the
consistent
comparison
of
economic
data
between
various
sectors
of
the
U.
S.
economy.
The
use
of
SIC
codes
by
EPA
is
also
not
required
by
the
Act
or
even
mentioned
in
the
Act.
As
explained
above,
EPA
chose
to
use
SIC
codes
to
define
sources
including
sources
within
the
28
listed
source
categories.
EPA's
regulatory
use
of
SIC
codes
does
not
have
to
follow
the
exact
approach
taken
by
the
SIC
manual.

While
it
may
be
appropriate
for
economic
statistical
purposes,
to
place
ethanol
fuel
and
ethanol
fit
for
human
consumption
in
different
categories
("
Major
Groups"
28
and
20
respectively),
this
does
not
limit
EPA's
discretion
to
treat
both
types
of
ethanol
in
the
same
manner
for
regulatory
purposes.

Ethanol
Production
Facilities:

In
the
U.
S.,
ethanol
(
ethyl
alcohol)
is
currently
being
produced
either
synthetically
or
through
the
fermentation
of
sugars
derived
from
agricultural
feedstocks.
For
ethanol
produced
synthetically,
either
ethylene
or
hydrogen
(
H2)
and
carbon
monoxide
(
CO)
are
used
as
the
feedstock.
As
of
2002,
only
two
facilities
in
the
U.
S.
were
producing
synthetic
ethanol.
(
Memorandum
from
Mary
Lalley,
Easter
Research
Group,
Inc.,
to
Bob
industrial"
or
"
ethyl
alcohol,
industrial
(
nonbeverage)"
are
classified.
15
Rosensteel,
U.
S.
EPA,
July
2,
2002).

The
majority
of
ethanol
produced
in
the
U.
S.
is
produced
from
sugar
or
starchbased
feedstock
(
e.
g.,
corn,
millet,
beverage
waste)
using
two
basic
processes:
the
dry
mill
process
and
the
wet
mill
process.
The
key
difference
between
these
two
processes
is
the
initial
treatment
of
the
grain.
In
the
wet
mill
process,
the
grain
is
soaked
and
then
ground
to
remove
germ,
fiber,
and
gluten
from
the
starch
prior
to
cooking.
In
the
dry
mill
process,
the
grain
or
feedstock
is
not
separated
into
its
constituent
parts
prior
to
cooking.

Both
wet
and
dry
milling
operations
produce
ethanol
as
well
as
other
co­
products.

"
Co­
products
from
the
dry
mill
process,
separated
from
the
ethanol
in
the
distillation
step,

include
distiller's
dried
grain
(
DDG)
and
solubles
(
S),
which
are
often
combined
and
referred
to
as
DDGS.
DDGS
is
used
as
an
animal
feed.
In
the
wet
mill
process,

coproducts
are
separated
from
the
ethanol
production
process
in
the
initial
grinding
or
milling
step.
Co­
products
from
the
wet
milling
process
include
fiber
and
gluten,
which
are
used
for
animal
feed
and
corn
oil."
(
Memorandum
from
Mary
Lalley,
July
2,
2002).

Most
new
ethanol
production
capacity
comes
from
dry
mill
processing
facilities
(
R.
W.
Beck,
Inc.,
Renewable
Energy
Bulletin,
Special
Projects).
Wet
milling
operations,

on
the
other
hand,
can
produce
ethanol,
including
ethanol
for
fuel,
but
are
typically
primarily
engaged
in
producing
starch,
syrup,
oil,
sugar,
and
by­
products,
such
as
gluten
feed
and
meal.
For
ethanol
which
will
be
used
as
fuel,
toxic
solvents
(
typically
gasoline)

are
added
to
the
ethanol
to
render
it
unfit
for
human
consumption
(
denatured).
This
additional
step
is
required
to
develop
ethanol
fuel
regardless
of
whether
the
dry
or
wet
mill
process
was
employed
to
develop
the
initially
potable
ethanol.
It
is
EPA's
understanding
that
whether
the
wet
or
dry
milling
process
is
used,
the
process
for
making
ethanol
for
16
food
products,
and
that
for
making
ethanol
for
fuel,
is
essentially
the
same
up
until
the
step
at
which
gasoline
or
other
toxic
solvents
are
added
in
the
process
for
making
ethanol
for
fuel.

As
noted
above,
one
of
the
source
categories
in
the
list
of
28
source
categories
included
in
the
"
major
emitting
facility"
definition
(
and
in
the
NSR
and
Title
V
regulations)
is
chemical
process
plants6.
The
major
group
SIC
code
(
2­
digit
SIC
code)
in
which
chemical
process
plants
falls
is
major
group
28
 
"
Chemicals
and
Allied
Products".

The
4­
digit
SIC
code
which
is
directly
applicable
to
the
production
of
ethanol
for
fuel
is
SIC
code
2869
 
"
Industrial
Organic
Chemicals,
Not
Elsewhere
Classified."
"
Ethanol,

industrial"
and
"
Ethyl
alcohol,
industrial
(
nonbeverage)"
are
both
listed
in
the
SIC
Manual
as
a
specific
product
within
this
4­
digit
category.

In
addition
to
the
specific
references
in
the
SIC
Manual
relative
to
ethanol
production,
EPA
also
specifically
addressed
this
issue
in
an
internal
EPA
memorandum
dated
March
31,
1981,
from
Edward
Reich,
Director,
Division
of
Stationary
Source
Enforcement,
Office
of
Enforcement
to
the
Directors,
Air
and
Hazardous
Materials
Divisions,
Regions
I­
X,
and
the
Directors,
Enforcement
Divisions,
Regions
I­
X.
In
this
memo,
Mr.
Reich
states
the
following:

This
is
to
clarify
the
proper
classification
for
ethanol
fuel
plants
for
purposes
of
PSD
applicability.
The
Agency
regards
any
source
listed
under
major
Group
28
of
the
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
manual
as
a
chemical
process
plant.
Ethanol
fuel
is
listed
under
SIC
Group
286:

6
It
is
important
to
note
that
although
this
document
refers
to
the
list
of
28
source
categories,
you
will
actually
see
a
list
of
27
categories
when
you
review
the
NSR
and
Title
V
regulations.
This
is
because
when
the
list
was
first
promulgated
on
August
7,
1980
(
45
FR
52676),
the
hydrofluoric,
sulfuric,
and
nitric
acid
plants
were
listed
as
one
category
and
an
additional
category
(
the
27th
category)
was
added
to
address
sources
regulated
by
section
111
or
112
standards
as
of
August
7,
1980.
17
Industrial
Organic
Chemicals.
Ethanol
fuel
plants
should
therefore
be
considered
a
chemical
process
plant
subject
to
the
100
tons
per
year
threshold
for
PSD
review.

Given
that
ethanol
fuel
production
is
specifically
listed
under
the
2­
digit
"
Major
Group"

SIC
code
of
28
in
the
SIC
manual
and
given
the
above­
noted
memo,
EPA
has
historically
required
production
facilities
or
units
which
produce
ethanol
fuel
to
be
classified
as
chemical
process
plants
(
regardless
of
whether
they
are
wet
or
dry
corn
mills);
such
facilities
are
therefore
subject
to
the
100
tons
per
year
threshold
under
PSD.

Wet
milling
operations
are
specifically
addressed
under
SIC
Code
2046
("
Wet
Corn
Milling")
in
the
SIC
Manual.
Although
the
SIC
Manual
lists
this
category
as
"
Wet
Corn
Milling"
the
description
for
this
4­
digit
category
specifically
notes
that
this
category
applies
to
establishments
primarily
engaged
in
milling
corn
or
sorghum
grain
(
milo)
by
the
wet
process.
The
relevant
Major
Group
for
"
Wet
Corn
Milling"
is
"
Major
Group"
20
 

"
Food
and
Kindred
Products".

Accordingly,
for
the
units
at
wet
corn
milling
operations
engaged
in
producing
the
food
products
noted
in
the
SIC
Manual,
these
units
are
classified
under
"
Major
Group"
20
and
are
therefore
subject
to
the
250
tons
per
year
threshold
under
PSD.

However,
if
units
at
wet
corn
mills
produce
ethanol
for
fuel,
EPA
and
States
have
treated
wet
corn
mills
as
a
part
of
a
chemical
process
plant
and
therefore
subject
to
the
100
tons
per
year
threshold.
This
is
evident
in
various
State
permits
that
permit
wet
corn
milling
that
produces
ethanol
fuel
as
"
nested"
chemical
process
plants.
See,
e.
g.,
Archer
Daniels
Midland,
Columbus,
Nebraska
Operating
Permit,
February
17,
2005.

As
discussed
above,
both
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
processes
can
produce
ethyl
alcohol
for
human
consumption.
Our
understanding
is
that
the
processes
in
these
facilities
18
are
identical
to
a
facility
which
produces
ethyl
alcohol
for
fuel
with
the
exception
of
an
additional
step
in
which
a
toxic
solvent
is
added
to
the
ethyl
alcohol
to
render
it
unfit
for
human
consumption.

Some
industry
stakeholders
believe
that
it
is
unfair
for
EPA
and
States
to
have
applied
two
different
thresholds,
i.
e.,
a
100
tons
per
year
threshold
for
ethanol
fuel
production
and
a
250
tons
per
year
threshold
for
ethanol
intended
for
human
consumption,

especially
since
the
processes
are
the
same
except
for
the
additional
step
of
adding
toxic
solvents
to
the
ethyl
alcohol.
Some
stakeholders
have
mentioned
to
EPA
that
this
permitting
practice
is
not
consistent.
EPA
requests
information
on
(
1)
whether
the
corn
milling
processes
for
making
ethanol
for
fuel
and
ethanol
for
food
are
essentially
the
same
up
until
the
step
at
which
gasoline
or
another
toxic
solvent
is
added
to
the
ethanol
intended
for
fuel;
(
2)
what
steps
take
place
beyond
the
step
at
which
gasoline
or
another
toxic
solvent
is
added
to
the
ethanol
intended
for
fuel;
(
3)
what
steps
in
the
ethanol
intended
for
food
(
e.
g.,
beverage)
process
are
different
from
the
ethanol
for
fuel
process;

(
4)
whether
the
technology
used
to
manufacture
the
ethanol
fuel
and
ethanol
for
food
is
the
same
technology;
and
(
5)
how
the
corn
milling
process
for
producing
industrial
ethanol
varies
from
the
corn
milling
processes
used
to
produce
ethanol
fuel
or
ethanol
used
for
food.
Finally,
we
also
request
information
on
how
EPA
and
States
have
permitted
corn
mills
that
produce
ethanol
for
fuel,
ethanol
for
food,
and
industrial
ethanol
and
whether
EPA
and
States
have
been
consistent
in
applying
the
correct
major
source
threshold
and
counting
fugitive
emissions
appropriately.

III.
Today's
Proposed
Rule
A.
What
is
being
proposed?
19
Today
we
are
taking
comment
on
two
options
that
EPA
is
considering
with
respect
to
the
treatment
of
wet
and
dry
corn
mills
that
produce
either
ethanol
for
fuel
or
ethanol
for
food
under
the
"
major
emitting
facility"
thresholds.
Under
the
first
option,

EPA
proposes
to
redefine
chemical
process
plants
under
the
definition
of
"
major
emitting
facility"
found
in
section
169(
1)
of
the
Act
to
exclude
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel.
Under
the
second
option,
we
would
continue
to
include
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
that
produce
ethanol
fuel
within
the
definition
of
chemical
process
plants
and
within
the
definition
of
"
major
emitting
facility"
found
in
section
169(
1).
EPA's
preferred
option
is
Option
1.
If
EPA
selects
Option
1,
we
would
base
this
proposal
on
several
factors:
(
1)
EPA's
discretion
to
define
chemical
process
plants
to
exclude
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities;
and
(
2)
the
desire
to
treat
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
in
the
same
manner
under
the
PSD,
nonattainment
NSR,
and
title
V
permits
programs
due
to
the
similar
processes
that
are
employed
by
these
facilities
regardless
of
whether
ethanol
fuel
or
potable
ethanol
is
being
produced.

The
PSD
and
nonattainment
NSR
regulations
that
we
are
proposing
to
amend
today
if
we
select
option
1
are
found
in
40
CFR
51.165,
51.166,
52.21,
and
52.24.
We
are
not
proposing
to
amend
Appendix
S
of
part
51
in
today's
action.
The
title
V
regulations
that
we
are
proposing
to
amend
today
are
found
in
40
CFR
parts
70
and
71.

In
this
proposal,
we
are
soliciting
comment
on
whether
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
that
produce
ethanol
for
fuel
should
continue
to
be
considered
a
part
of
the
chemical
process
plants
source
category.
In
addition,
we
are
also
soliciting
comment
on
whether
other
types
of
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel,
such
as
those
using
cellulosic
biomass
feedstocks,
e.
g.,
solid
waste,
agricultural
wastes,
wood,
and
grasses,
should
also
20
be
considered
for
exclusion
from
the
chemical
process
plants
definition
due
to
having
production
processes
similar
to
those
found
at
wet
and
dry
milling
facilities
in
cases
where
potable
ethanol
or
ethanol
fuel
is
being
produced.
We
request
information,
including
process
flow
diagrams,
on
the
processes
used
to
develop
ethanol
fuel
using
the
abovenoted
feedstocks.

B.
What
additional
changes
are
being
proposed
for
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities?

Two
of
the
regulatory
changes
being
proposed
today
address
the
major
source
threshold
for
PSD
sources,
i.
e.,
40
CFR
51.166(
b)(
1)(
i)(
a)
and
52.21(
b)(
1)(
i)(
a).
The
remaining
proposed
regulatory
changes
address
when
fugitive
emissions
are
counted
for
purposes
of
determining
whether
a
source
is
a
major
source
under
the
PSD,
nonattainment
NSR,
or
title
V
programs.

Section
302(
j)
of
the
Act
states:

Except
as
otherwise
expressly
provided,
the
terms
`
major
stationary
source'
and
`
major
emitting
facility'
mean
any
stationary
facility
or
source
of
air
pollutants
which
directly
emits,
or
has
the
potential
to
emit,
one
hundred
tons
per
year
or
more
of
any
air
pollutant
(
including
any
major
emitting
facility
or
source
of
fugitive
emissions
of
any
such
pollutant,
as
determined
by
rule
by
the
Administrator).

When
the
list
of
source
categories
relative
to
the
definition
of
"
major
emitting
facility"
was
first
promulgated
in
the
NSR
regulations
on
August
7,
1980
(
45
FR
52676),

this
same
list
was
promulgated
in
the
NSR
regulations
for
determining
from
which
source
categories
fugitive
emissions
were
to
be
counted
in
determining
whether
a
source
was
a
major
source.
These
28
source
categories
were
promulgated
as
a
result
of
the
decision
in
Alabama
Power
v.
Costle,
626
F.
2d.
323
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1979).
In
Alabama
Power,
the
court
held
that
"
fugitive
emissions
are
to
be
included
in
determining
whether
a
source
or
21
modification
is
major
only
if
and
when
EPA
issues
an
appropriate
legislative
rule."
EPA
conducted
rulemaking
by
which
it
identified
the
28
source
categories
for
which
fugitive
emissions
would
be
counted
in
determining
whether
a
source
is
a
major
source.
We
also
identified
the
two
criteria
by
which
we
would
decide
whether
a
source's
fugitive
emissions
would
be
included
in
major
source
determinations:
(
1)
sources
in
the
category
could
degrade
air
quality
significantly,
and
(
2)
there
were
no
unreasonable
costs
compared
to
benefits
associated
with
listing
the
category.
See
49
FR
43,203
(
1984).

However,
as
to
the
28
initial
source
categories
listed
under
section
302(
j),
EPA
provided
no
discussion
of
the
types
of
sources
within
the
28
source
categories,
nor
any
specific
analyses
associated
with
the
development
of
this
list,
when
the
list
was
proposed
(
1979)
and
then
promulgated
(
1980).
Thus,
the
term
"
chemical
process
plants"
was
included
in
the
list
developed
under
section
302(
j)
of
source
categories
whose
fugitive
emissions
would
be
counted
in
a
determination
of
whether
it
is
a
major
source,
even
though
no
specific
analysis
was
done
as
to
that
source
category.
Furthermore,
EPA
also
did
not
perform
any
analysis
of
the
specific
types
of
plants
that
may
have
fallen
within
the
category
of
"
chemical
process
plants."

Thus,
pursuant
to
section
302(
j)
of
the
Act,
EPA
by
rulemaking
listed
categories
of
sources
from
which
fugitive
emissions
shall
be
included
for
purposes
of
determining
whether
a
source
is
a
"
major
stationary
source."
One
of
the
categories
of
sources
on
that
list
is
chemical
process
plants.
If
we
adopt
Option
1,
we
are
not
proposing
to
change
the
list
of
categories
that
we
developed
by
rule
under
302(
j).
However,
we
are
proposing
to
change
the
definition
of
chemical
process
plants
to
exclude
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities.
Since
we
are
not
changing
the
list
of
source
categories
that
we
listed
under
22
section
302(
j),
but
merely
redefining
one
of
those
listed
categories,
we
do
not
believe
that
it
is
now
necessary
to
conduct
a
rulemaking
which
meets
the
requirements
of
302(
j)
of
the
Act
in
order
to
redefine
when
we
count
fugitive
emissions
relative
to
chemical
process
plants.
We
solicit
comment,
however,
on
whether
it
is
appropriate
to
define
chemical
process
plants
to
exclude
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
for
the
purpose
of
determining
when
fugitives
are
to
be
counted
in
major
source
determinations
under
PSD,

nonattainment
NSR,
and
title
V
without
specifically
addressing
the
requirements
associated
with
a
302(
j)
rulemaking.

1.
EPA's
discretion
to
modify
its
approach
if
we
Adopt
Option
1
As
explained
previously
(
See
"
II.
Background"),
we
have
no
knowledge
that
ethanol
production
facilities,
ethanol
fuel
production
facilities,
or
corn
milling
facilities
were
specifically
considered
by
Congress
when
major
emitting
facilities
as
specified
in
section
169(
1)
of
the
Act
were
being
defined.
We
do
know,
however,
that
none
of
these
facilities
were
specifically
listed
within
the
chemical
process
plants
source
category
in
either
the
draft
report
(
as
incorporated
into
the
Congressional
Record)
or
in
the
final
Research
Corp.
report
entitled
"
Impact
of
New
Source
Performance
Standards
on
1985
National
Emissions
from
Stationary
Sources."
(
See
122
Cong.
Rec.
24,520­
23
(
1976)).

This
report
by
EPA's
contractor
(
Research
Corp.)
appears
to
be
a
significant
source
upon
which
Congress
relied
when
it
drafted
section
169(
1)
and,
more
specifically,
when
it
developed
the
list
of
identified
source
categories
in
this
statutory
provision.
Therefore
Congress,
when
it
enacted
section
169(
1),
appears
not
to
have
expressed
its
intent
as
to
whether
ethanol
production
facilities,
ethanol
fuel
production
facilities,
or
corn
milling
facilities
should
be
considered
within
the
"
chemical
process
plants"
source
category.
23
As
explained
previously,
in
its
August
7,
1980,
rulemaking,
EPA
decided,
in
the
exercise
of
its
discretion
and
in
the
absence
of
an
expression
of
Congressional
intent
on
the
issue,
to
use
the
2­
digit
"
Major
Group"
listings
as
defined
by
the
SIC
manual
of
1972
(
as
amended
in
1977)
as
its
basis
for
defining
a
source.
Using
this
approach
to
define
a
source,
a
facility
producing
fuel
ethanol,
would
be
classified
under
"
Major
Group
28
 

Chemicals
and
Allied
Products"
given
that
"
Ethanol,
industrial"
and
"
Ethyl
alcohol,

industrial
(
nonbeverage)"
are
two
specific
products
under
the
more
specific
4­
digit
SIC
code
of
"
Industrial
Organic
Chemicals,
Not
Elsewhere
Classified."

Although
EPA's
policy,
as
defined
in
its
March
31,
1981,
memorandum
above,
has
been
to
define
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel
as
being
within
Major
Group
28,
EPA
has
the
discretion
to
modify
its
classification
of
these
facilities
through
notice
and
comment
rulemaking.
Congress
did
not
indicate
an
intent,

either
in
the
statutory
provision,
or
in
the
legislative
history,
to
define
ethanol
fuel
production
facilities
or
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
as
being
within
the
chemical
process
plants
source
category,
nor
did
Congress
assign
such
facilities
to
any
particular
2­

digit
"
Major
Group"
within
the
SIC
system.
Given
this
absence
of
Congressional
intent
on
the
issue,
EPA
has
the
discretion
to
promulgate
reasonable
regulations
on
the
appropriate
treatment
of
plants
that
manufacture
ethanol
for
fuel
under
section
169(
1)
of
the
CAA
and
under
the
PSD,
nonattainment
NSR,
and
title
V
programs.

EPA's
discretion
to
modify
its
approach
given
that
Congress
has
not
spoken
directly
to
how
wet
and
dry
corn
mills
are
to
be
classified
is
allowed
by
the
Chevron
decision
(
Chevron
U.
S.
A.,
Inc.
v.
Natural
Res.
Def.
Council,
467
U.
S.
837
(
1984)).
This
decision
was
recently
explained
in
New
York
v.
EPA,
413
F.
3d
3,
18
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2005)
as
24
follows:

As
to
EPA's
interpretation
of
the
CAA,
we
proceed
under
Chevron's
familiar
two­
step
process.
See
467
U.
S.
at
842­
43.
In
the
first
step
(`
Chevron
Step
1'),
we
determine
whether
based
on
the
Act's
language,
legislative
history,
structure,
and
purpose,
`
Congress
has
directly
spoken
to
the
precise
question
at
issue.'
Id.
at
842.
If
so,
EPA
must
obey.
But
if
Congress's
intent
is
ambiguous,
we
proceed
to
the
second
step
(`
Chevron
Step
2')
and
consider
`
whether
the
agency's
[
interpretation]
is
based
on
a
permissible
construction
of
the
statute.'
Id.
at
843.
If
so,
we
will
give
that
interpretation
`
controlling
weight
unless
[
it
is]
arbitrary,
capricious,
or
manifestly
contrary
to
the
statute.'
Id.
at
844.

As
a
result,
although
it
remains
EPA's
policy
to
classify
sources
under
the
PSD,

nonattainment
NSR,
and
title
V
programs
using
the
2­
digit
"
Major
Group"
classification
system
as
defined
by
the
SIC
manual,
EPA
is
proposing
to
depart
from
this
approach
in
classifying
wet
and
dry
corn
mills.
As
summarized
above,
EPA
has
the
discretion
to
modify
its
approach
to
classifying
sources
as
appropriate
through
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
if
it
meets
the
criteria
outlined
in
Chevron.

2.
Similar
treatment
of
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
regardless
of
the
product
produced
Within
this
rulemaking,
the
two
basic
processes
that
are
discussed
for
producing
ethanol
fuel
are
the
wet
mill
and
dry
mill
process.
Both
of
these
processes
result
in
fermentation
ethanol
as
opposed
to
synthetic
ethanol.
As
discussed
above,
the
primary
feedstock
for
fermentation
ethanol
is
corn,
millet,
or
beverage
waste;
for
synthetic
ethanol,

it
is
ethylene
or
hydrogen
(
H2)
and
carbon
monoxide
(
CO).

As
also
discussed
above,
the
key
differences
between
the
wet
and
dry
mill
processes
is
the
initial
treatment
of
the
grain
or
feedstock.
Additionally,
in
situations
where
ethanol
fuel
is
being
produced,
whether
as
a
result
of
the
dry
or
wet
milling
process,
25
a
denaturing
step
is
added
to
the
process
in
order
to
make
the
ethanol
unfit
for
human
consumption.
This
denaturing
step
is
a
step
in
which
a
small
amount
of
gasoline
(
2­
5%)

or
other
toxic
solvents
are
added
to
the
ethanol.
This
additional
step
is
what
causes
the
ethanol
fuel
production
facility
to
be
classified
under
"
Major
Group"
28
of
the
SIC
manual.
If
the
gasoline
or
other
toxic
solvents
were
not
added
to
the
ethanol
in
this
additional
step,
the
facility
would
produce
ethanol
fit
for
human
consumption
and
would
be
classified
under
"
Major
Group"
20
 
"
Food
and
Kindred
Products."
In
this
latter
classification,
a
facility
would
not
be
subject
to
the
100
tons
per
year
threshold
under
the
PSD
regulations,
but
instead
would
be
subject
to
the
250
tons
per
year
threshold
under
these
regulations.

As
discussed
in
this
section,
if
EPA
adopts
its
preferred
option,
Option
1,
EPA
is
proposing
to
depart
from
its
practice
of
classifying
ethanol
fuel
production
facilities,
which
use
the
wet
or
dry
milling
process,
as
chemical
process
plants.
EPA
solicits
comment
on
whether
we
should
retain
our
current
practice
of
classifying
an
ethanol
fuel
production
facility,
which
uses
the
wet
or
dry
milling
process,
as
a
chemical
process
plant,
or
if
the
Agency
should
adopt
a
different
approach
for
classifying
these
facilities
such
as
is
discussed
above.
EPA
also
solicits
comment
on
whether
characteristics
of
the
wet
and
dry
milling
processes
for
producing
ethanol
fuel
are
such
that
they
are
in
important
ways
distinct
from
other
sources
that
are
included
in
the
"
chemical
process
plants"
source
category.

B.
What
are
the
implications
of
changing
the
classification
of
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel
as
a
result
of
the
wet
or
dry
milling
process?

The
obvious
implication
of
changing
the
classification
of
facilities
which
produce
26
ethanol
fuel
as
a
result
of
the
wet
or
dry
milling
process
to
a
classification
other
than
chemical
process
plants
is
that
this
will
allow
these
sources
to
expand
production
without
triggering
PSD
permitting
requirements,
as
a
result
of
raising
the
applicable
major
source
threshold
from
100
tons
per
year
to
250
tons
per
year.
Many
existing
sources
have
taken
PTE
limits
just
below
the
100
tons
per
year
threshold
to
avoid
PSD.
Such
sources
would
be
able
to
raise
these
limits
to
just
below
250
tons
per
year
if
the
proposed
rule
is
finalized
as
proposed.
Alternatively,
even
without
raising
the
current
100
tons
per
year
threshold,

sources
could
expand
production
to
some
extent
without
triggering
PSD,
nonattainment
NSR,
or
title
V
permitting
requirements,
because
the
calculation
of
actual
and
potential
emissions
would
no
longer
need
to
include
fugitive
emissions
at
the
facilities.
This
is
because
if
the
proposed
rule
is
finalized
as
proposed,
fugitive
emissions
would
no
longer
be
counted
in
determining
whether
the
facility
producing
ethanol
fuel
as
a
result
of
the
wet
or
dry
milling
process
is
a
major
source
under
these
programs7.

Moreover,
such
a
change
will
potentially
undermine
the
use
of
the
SIC
Manual
in
assigning
SIC
codes
to
source
categories.
This
classification
process
is
important
and
has
implications
in
determining
(
1)
what
major
source
threshold
under
the
PSD
program
is
applicable
to
a
source;
(
2)
whether
fugitive
emissions
from
a
source
are
considered
in
determining
whether
the
source
is
subject
to
the
PSD,
nonattainment
NSR,
and
title
V
programs;
and
(
3)
how
a
source
is
to
be
aggregated
with
other
collocated
sources
at
the
7
A
wet
or
dry
corn
milling
facility
may
be
required
to
count
its
fugitive
emissions
to
determine
whether
it
is
a
major
source
regardless
of
whether
today's
proposal
is
finalized
as
proposed.
This
is
because
even
if
the
facility
isn't
considered
to
be
a
part
of
the
chemical
process
plants
source
category,
one
or
more
units
within
the
facility
may
be
considered
to
fall
within
another
source
category
for
which
fugitive
emissions
are
required
to
be
counted.
27
site
to
determine
whether
a
major
source
exists.
Another
implication
of
such
a
classification
change
is
that
it
would
likely
create
a
disparity
in
how
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel
as
a
result
of
the
dry
or
wet
milling
process
are
considered
under
the
NSR
and
Title
V
programs
versus
how
other
ethanol
fuel
producers
are
considered
under
these
programs.

A
number
of
existing
dry
mills
and
wet
mills
which
produce
ethanol
fuel
have
installed
emission
controls
and
have
synthetic
minor
permits
that
limit
plant­
wide
emissions
to
less
than
100
tons
per
year.
Changing
the
facility
classification
such
that
the
major
source
threshold
would
be
250
tons
per
year
could
allow
these
sources
to
increase
their
emissions
by
more
than
149
tons
and
still
remain
minor
sources.
EPA
is
seeking
comment
on
the
potential
environmental
effects
of
increasing
the
major
source
threshold
from
100
tons
per
year
to
250
tons
per
year,
and
eliminating
the
requirement
to
count
fugitive
emissions
in
these
threshold
determinations,
for
ethanol
fuel
facilities
which
have
been
proposed
for
construction
and
which
will
employ
the
wet
or
dry
milling
process.

Finally,
if
a
State
does
not
allow
a
permit
change
to
reflect
the
new
increased
threshold,
the
change
in
classification
may
create
an
unlevel
playing
field
between
those
existing
wet
and
dry
mills
that
have
complied
with
the
existing
100
tons
per
year
threshold
and
have
installed
controls
and
those
existing
wet
and
dry
mills
with
similar
emissions
that
may
currently
be
in
violation
of
the
existing
threshold.
Existing
wet
and
dry
mills
subject
to
a
100
tons
per
year
threshold
may
also
be
placed
in
a
competitive
disadvantage
with
newly
constructed
sources
that
may
not
be
required
to
install
any
pollution
control
devices
given
the
new
higher
regulatory
threshold.
Pending
enforcement
actions
against
corn
milling
facilities
may
also
be
compromised
resulting
in
a
missed
opportunity
to
reduce
tens
28
of
thousands
of
tons
of
pollution.
We
are
seeking
comment
on
all
of
the
above
potential
implications
of
the
described
classification
change.

C.
What
are
the
implications
of
not
changing
the
classification
for
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel
as
a
result
of
the
dry
or
wet
milling
process?

If
the
classification
for
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel
as
a
result
of
the
dry
or
wet
milling
process
is
not
changed
to
a
classification
other
than
chemical
process
plants,

then
these
facilities
will
continue
to
be
subject
to
the
100
tons
per
year
threshold
under
the
PSD
program
and
will
be
required
to
continue
counting
their
fugitive
emissions
in
determining
whether
they
are
subject
to
PSD
or
nonattainment
NSR
(
whichever
program
is
applicable)
and
title
V.
In
theory,
this
could
potentially
stymie
the
growth
of
the
ethanol
production
industry
which,
in
turn,
could
lead
to
reduced
energy
diversification
and
independence
in
this
country.
Industry
information
seems
to
suggest,
however,
that
these
facilities
have
experienced
robust
growth
in
recent
years,
even
though
they
were
subject
to
the
major
source
threshold
of
100
tons
per
year
and
the
requirement
to
count
fugitive
emissions
in
their
major
source
determinations.

On
the
other
hand,
if
the
threshold
is
not
changed,
newly
constructed
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel
as
a
result
of
the
dry
or
wet
milling
process
may
install
pollution
controls
at
the
time
of
initial
construction,
which
is
known
to
be
the
most
cost
effective
time
to
install
pollution
control
devices.
EPA
is
soliciting
comment
on
how
pollution
control
devices
have
affected
the
ethanol
production
industry
and
whether
the
100
tons
per
year
threshold
and
the
requirement
to
count
fugitive
emissions
has
hindered
the
construction
of
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel
as
a
result
of
the
wet
or
dry
milling
process.
Based
on
the
responses
to
the
above
requests
for
comment,
we
may
29
decide
to
adopt
Option
2.

IV.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866
­
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
the
Agency
must
determine
whether
the
regulatory
action
is
"
significant"
and
therefore
subject
to
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
review
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.

The
Order
defines
"
significant
regulatory
action"
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:

(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,

jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;

(
2)
Create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;

(
3)
Materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs,
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
Raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.

Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
it
is
determined
that
this
rule
is
a
"
significant
regulatory
action"
because
it
raises
policy
issues
arising
from
the
President's
priorities.
The
EPA
has
submitted
this
action
to
OMB
for
review.
Changes
made
in
response
to
OMB
suggestions
or
recommendations
will
be
documented
in
the
public
record.
30
B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
This
action
does
not
impose
any
new
information
collection
burden.
We
are
not
promulgating
any
new
paperwork
requirements
(
e.
g.,
monitoring,
reporting,

recordkeeping)
as
part
of
today
=

s
proposed
action.
However,
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
has
previously
approved
the
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
the
existing
regulations
(
40
CFR
parts
51
and
52)
under
the
provisions
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.,
and
has
assigned
OMB
control
number
2060­
0003,
EPA
ICR
number
1230.17.
However,
a
revised
information
collection
request
was
submitted
to
OMB
in
relation
to
the
October
20,
2005
proposed
rule
(
70
FR
61081)
called
the
"
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
Nonattainment
New
Source
Review,
and
New
Source
Review
Performance
Standards:
Emissions
Test
for
Electric
Generating
Units."
This
revised
ICR
has
been
assigned
EPA
ICR
number
1230.18.
A
copy
of
the
OMB
approved
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
EPA
ICR
number
1230.17
may
be
obtained
from
Susan
Auby,
Collection
Strategies
Division;
U.
S.

Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
2822T);
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,

DC
20460
or
by
calling
(
202)
566­
1672.

Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.

This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
31
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.

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
EPA's
regulations
in
40
CFR
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9.

C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
(
RFA)

The
RFA
generally
requires
an
agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
or
any
other
statue
unless
the
Agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.

For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
action
on
small
entities,
a
small
entity
is
defined
as:
(
1)
a
small
business
that
is
a
small
industrial
entity
as
defined
in
the
U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA)
size
standards
(
see
13
CFR
121.201);
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district,
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
or
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
for­
profit
enterprise
that
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.

After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today
=

s
proposed
action
on
small
entities,
I
certify
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
This
proposed
rule
will
not
impose
any
requirements
on
small
entities.
We
are
only
requesting
public
comment
on
whether
or
not
corn
milling
facilities
should
be
subject
to
the
same
major
source
threshold
regardless
of
whether
they
32
produce
ethanol
fuel
or
ethanol
fit
for
human
consumption.
We
continue
to
be
interested
in
the
potential
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
entities
and
welcome
comments
on
issues
related
to
such
impacts.

D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Public
Law
104­
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
"
Federal
mandates"
that
may
result
in
expenditures
to
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
1
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
as
to
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.

Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.

The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,

enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
33
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
Today's
rule
contains
no
Federal
mandates
(
under
the
regulatory
provisions
of
Title
II
of
the
UMRA)
for
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
the
private
sector.

Thus,
today's
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sections
202
and
205
of
the
UMRA.

E.
Executive
Order
13132
­
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
"
Federalism"
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),

requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications."
"
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications"
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
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
proposal
rule
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,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
action.

In
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13132,
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
EPA
and
State
and
local
governments,
EPA
is
soliciting
comment
on
today
=

s
proposal
from
State
and
local
officials.
34
F.
Executive
Order
13175
­
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
A
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
@

(
65
FR
13175,
November
9,
2000,
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
A
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.@
This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
There
are
no
Tribal
authorities
currently
issuing
major
NSR
and
Title
V
permits.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

Although
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
proposed
rule,
EPA
specifically
solicits
comment
on
this
proposed
rule
from
tribal
officials.

G.
Executive
Order
13045
­
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045,
entitled
"
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks"
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997),
applies
to
any
rule
that:

(
1)
is
determined
to
be
"
economically
significant"
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866;
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
Agency
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.

Today
=

s
action
is
not
subject
to
the
Executive
Order
because
it
is
not
economically
significant
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
12866,
and
because
the
Agency
does
not
have
35
reason
to
believe
the
environmental
health
or
safety
risks
addressed
by
this
action
present
a
disproportionate
risk
to
children.
Today
=

s
proposed
action
is
not
expected
to
present
a
disproportionate
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
for
children.

H.
Executive
Order
13211
­
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
Today
=

s
action
is
not
a
A
significant
energy
action
@

as
defined
in
Executive
Order
13211,
A
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,

Distribution,
or
Use
@

(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001)
because
it
is
not
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy.

I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(
NTTAA),
Public
Law
104­
113,
section
12(
d)
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.

Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
for
example,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
and
business
practices)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standards
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.

Today
=

s
action
does
not
involve
technical
standards.
Therefore,
EPA
did
not
consider
the
use
of
any
voluntary
consensus
standards.
36
List
of
Subjects
40
CFR
Parts
51
and
52
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Nitrogen
dioxide,
Ozone,
Particulate
matter,

Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Sulfur
oxides.

40
CFR
Part
70
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

40
CFR
Part
71
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

___________________
___________________________________
Dated:
Signature
37
For
the
reasons
set
out
in
the
preamble,
title
40,
chapter
I
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
proposed
to
be
amended
as
set
forth
below.

PART
51 [
Amended]

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
51
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
23
U.
S.
C.
101;
42
U.
S.
C.
7401,
et
seq.

Subpart
I [
Amended]

2.
Section
51.165
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
iv)(
C)(
20)
and
(
a)(
4)(
xx)
to
read
as
follows:

§
51.165
Permit
requirements.

(
a)
*
*
*

(
1)
*
*
*

(
iv)
*
*
*

(
C)
*
*
*

(
20)
Chemical
process
plants
 
which
does
not
include
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel;

*
*
*
*
*

(
4)
*
*
*

(
xx)
Chemical
process
plants
 
which
does
not
include
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel;

*
*
*
*
*

3.
Section
51.166
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)(
i)(
a),
(
b)(
1)(
iii)(
t),
and
(
i)(
1)(
ii)(
t)
to
read
as
follows:

§
51.166
Prevention
of
significant
deterioration
of
air
quality.
38
*
*
*
*
*

(
b)
Definitions.
*
*
*

(
1)(
i)
Major
stationary
source
means:

(
a)
Any
of
the
following
stationary
sources
of
air
pollutants
which
emits,
or
has
the
potential
to
emit,
100
tons
per
year
or
more
of
any
regulated
NSR
pollutant:
Fossil
fuelfired
steam
electric
plants
of
more
than
250
million
British
thermal
units
per
hour
heat
input,
coal
cleaning
plants
(
with
thermal
dryers),
kraft
pulp
mills,
portland
cement
plants,
primary
zinc
smelters,
iron
and
steel
mill
plants,
primary
aluminum
ore
reduction
plants,
primary
copper
smelters,
municipal
incinerators
capable
of
charging
more
than
250
tons
of
refuse
per
day,
hydrofluoric,
sulfuric,
and
nitric
acid
plants,
petroleum
refineries,
lime
plants,
phosphate
rock
processing
plants,
coke
oven
batteries,
sulfur
recovery
plants,
carbon
black
plants
(
furnace
process),
primary
lead
smelters,
fuel
conversion
plants,
sintering
plants,
secondary
metal
production
plants,
chemical
process
plants
(
which
does
not
include
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel),
fossil­
fuel
boilers
(
or
combinations
thereof)
totaling
more
than
250
million
British
thermal
units
per
hour
heat
input,
petroleum
storage
and
transfer
units
with
a
total
storage
capacity
exceeding
300,000
barrels,
taconite
ore
processing
plants,
glass
fiber
processing
plants,
and
charcoal
production
plants;

*
*
*
*
*

(
iii)
*
*
*

(
t)
Chemical
process
plants
 
which
does
not
include
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel;

*
*
*
*
*

(
i)
Exemptions.

(
1)
*
*
*

(
ii)
*
*
*

(
t)
Chemical
process
plants
 
which
does
not
include
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel;

*
*
*
*
*

PART
52 [
AMENDED]
39
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
52
continues
to
read
as
follows:

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

Subpart
A [
Amended]

2.
Section
52.21
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)(
i)(
a),
(
b)(
1)(
iii)(
t),
and
(
i)(
1)(
vii)(
t)
to
read
as
follows:

§
52.21
Prevention
of
significant
deterioration
of
air
quality.

*
*
*
*
*

(
b)
Definitions.
*
*
*

(
1)(
i)
Major
stationary
source
means:

(
a)
Any
of
the
following
stationary
sources
of
air
pollutants
which
emits,
or
has
the
potential
to
emit,
100
tons
per
year
or
more
of
any
regulated
NSR
pollutant:
Fossil
fuelfired
steam
electric
plants
of
more
than
250
million
British
thermal
units
per
hour
heat
input,
coal
cleaning
plants
(
with
thermal
dryers),
kraft
pulp
mills,
portland
cement
plants,
primary
zinc
smelters,
iron
and
steel
mill
plants,
primary
aluminum
ore
reduction
plants,
primary
copper
smelters,
municipal
incinerators
capable
of
charging
more
than
250
tons
of
refuse
per
day,
hydrofluoric,
sulfuric,
and
nitric
acid
plants,
petroleum
refineries,
lime
plants,
phosphate
rock
processing
plants,
coke
oven
batteries,
sulfur
recovery
plants,
carbon
black
plants
(
furnace
process),
primary
lead
smelters,
fuel
conversion
plants,
sintering
plants,
secondary
metal
production
plants,
chemical
process
plants
(
which
does
not
include
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel),
fossil­
fuel
boilers
(
or
combinations
thereof)
totaling
more
than
250
million
British
thermal
units
per
hour
heat
input,
petroleum
storage
and
transfer
units
with
a
total
storage
capacity
exceeding
300,000
barrels,
taconite
ore
processing
plants,
glass
fiber
processing
plants,
and
charcoal
production
plants;

*
*
*
*
*

(
iii)
*
*
*

(
t)
Chemical
process
plants
 
which
does
not
include
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel;

*
*
*
*
*

(
i)
Exemptions.
40
(
1)
*
*
*

(
vii)
*
*
*

(
t)
Chemical
process
plants
 
which
does
not
include
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel;

*
*
*
*
*

3.
Section
52.24
is
amended
by
revising
paragraphs
(
f)(
4)(
iii)(
t)
and
(
h)(
20)
to
read
as
follows:

§
52.24
Statutory
restrictions
on
new
sources.

*
*
*
*
*

(
f)
*
*
*

(
4)
*
*
*

(
iii)
*
*
*

(
t)
Chemical
process
plants
 
which
does
not
include
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel;

*
*
*
*
*

(
h)
*
*
*

(
20)
Chemical
process
plants
 
which
does
not
include
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel;

*
*
*
*
*

PART
70 [
AMENDED]

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
70
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
7401,
et
seq.
41
2.
Section
70.2
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
2)(
xx)
of
the
definition
of
Major
source
to
read
as
follows:

§
70.2
Definitions.

*
*
*
*
*

Major
source
*
*
*

(
2)
*
*
*

(
xx)
Chemical
process
plants
 
which
does
not
include
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel;

*
*
*
*
*

PART
71 [
AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart
A [
Amended]

2.
Section
71.2
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
2)(
xx)
of
the
definition
of
Major
source
to
read
as
follows:

§
71.2
Definitions.

*
*
*
*
*

Major
source
*
*
*

(
2)
*
*
*

(
xx)
Chemical
process
plants
 
which
does
not
include
wet
and
dry
corn
milling
facilities
which
produce
ethanol
fuel;

*
*
*
*
*