MEMORANDUM
TO:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790
FROM:	Mary Johnson, EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD
DATE:	November 2012
SUBJECT:	National Renderers Association July 15, 2011 Letter
            Area Source Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers

The National Renderers Association (NRA) submitted to the EPA Air and Radiation Docket a letter dated July 15, 2011 that requested changes to the Area Source Boiler Rule. The NRA asserted that their requested changes must be considered because the EPA changed the definition for liquid fuels in the final rule from the proposed rule without an opportunity for comment. The NRA stated their belief that the EPA should determine that processed fats are a separate non-petroleum liquid fuel and that processed fats are not subject to regulation under subpart JJJJJJ. Specifically, the NRA requested a new processed fats-fired boiler unit definition in subpart JJJJJJ, analogous to gas-fired boilers.
The definition of liquid fuel in the March 21, 2011 final rule (76 FR 15554) included another example of liquid fuel (i.e., liquid biofuels) and clarified that the definition was not limited to only those examples of liquid fuels cited (i.e., means, but not limited to). We note that the submittal of comments by the NRA on the 2010 proposed rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-0937) indicate that the NRA was on notice that processed fats-fired boilers may have been subject to the provisions of the Area Source Boiler Rule.
In the June 10, 2010 proposed rule notice (75 FR 31896), the EPA explained the basis for defining gas-fired boilers as not being part of the source category. Comparisons of processed fats-fired boilers to gas-fired boilers could have been raised during the public comment period for the initial rulemaking. In its comments on the proposed rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-0937), the NRA recognized that processed fats-fired boilers were covered by the Area Source Boiler Rule but did not suggest that those boilers should have been treated in a way that is analogous to gas-fired boilers. 
Upon consideration of the issues raised by the NRA in the July 15, 2011, letter, the content of the notices described above, and the NRA's timely comments on the June 2010 proposed rule, we deem its letter to be a request for reconsideration and deny its request. We conclude that the NRA has not demonstrated that its objections to the rule could not have been raised in the comment period nor has it established that the issue arose after the comment period but within 60 days of publication of the final rule.
