Comment submitted by Daniel Allison, Director of Operations, Abengoa Bioenergy Corporation

These comments are submitted in support of Option 1 in the EPA rulemaking to exclude corn milling ethanol production from the definition of ?chemical process plants,? thereby excluding them from the definition of ?major emitting facility? under section 169(1) of the Clean Air Act. This action will require Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review at 250 tons/year for any criteria pollutant. ? Ttaking this action is consistent with the intent of section 169(1) of the Clean Air Act. Doing so will serve to create equality in regulating the production of industrial alcohol, fuel ethanol, and alcohol produced for human consumption. ? The vast majority of ethanol plants are located in the Corn Belt where air quality meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). State minor source rules will continue to ensure that the NAAQS will continue to be protected in attainment areas. ? The rule will not change how dry mills are regulated in non attainment areas. The non-attainment new source review thresholds will remain the same. ? Dry corn mill ethanol and feed production facilities are more closely related to SIC code 2041 (Flour and Other Grain Mill Products) in the same manner that wet corn mills are related to SIC code 2046 (Wet Corn Milling). Both SIC codes, 2041 and 2046, are classified under the Food and Kindred Products major group 20 as 250 tpy PSD sources. Continued use of SIC code 2869 (chemical process plants) is an error that clearly does not fit the fermentation and distillation processes used by dry mill ethanol plants. ? The dry mill ethanol process is also closely related to SIC major group 20 manufacturing process, beverage alcohol production, which is classified under the SIC code 2085. The milling and distillation processes for beverage alcohol and fuel ethanol are virtually identical. The only difference is the final step where a small amount of denaturant, such as gasoline, is added to render the ethanol unfit for human consumption. ? Option 1, as proposed by EPA, would not allow for uncontrolled emissions from dry mill ethanol plants as even the smallest plant would emit greater than 250 tons/year if left uncontrolled. Therefore, any size dry mill plant would be required under state rules to use emission controls to protect the NAAQS. ? Title V permitting (100 tpy trigger) will not be impacted by EPA?s proposal. ? In April 2006, there was a fuel ethanol shortage on the east coast. The continued regulation of dry mills as chemical process plants (SIC code 2869) will be unnecessarily time-consuming in order to quickly meet market demand by using larger, lower emitting (per gallon basis), and more efficient fuel ethanol plants. ? All states have stringent minor new source review requirements and prohibitory rules that will continue to protect the public health, safety, and environment. Air permits cannot be issued without such state review. ? The proposed 250 tpy threshold (Option 1) for dry mills is not an emission limit, it is a trigger for review under federal PSD regulations. In fact, dry mills will continue to be well controlled facilities in order to stay below the proposed 250 tpy threshold. ? EPA?s proposal will help reduce dependence on foreign oil and spur economic development in rural communities. ? The emissions from ethanol plants do not increase in a direct correlation to increased capacity. It is proven that larger plants emit at a lower per gallon produced emission rate. The proposed rule (Option 1) promotes reliable domestic energy supply while continuing to protect the public health, safety, and environment. In addition, it is believed that the increased production of ethanol will have tremendous domestic economic benefits. It is recommended that EPA proceed immediately with final rulemaking for Option 1.