
[Federal Register: January 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 2)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 521-551]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05ja10-10]                         


[[Page 521]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area Source 
Standards for Prepared Feeds Manufacturing; Final Rule


[[Page 522]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080; FRL-9095-2]
RIN 2060-AO98

 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area 
Source Standards for Prepared Feeds Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing national emission standards for control of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) for the Prepared Feeds Manufacturing 
area source category. The emissions standards for new and existing 
sources are based on EPA's determination as to what constitutes the 
generally available control technology or management practices for the 
area source category.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 5, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
Federal Docket Management System index at http://
www.regulations.gov.index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will 
be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Public 
Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 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 Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jan King, Outreach and Information 
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C404-05), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5665; fax number: (919) 541-7674; e-
mail address: king.jan@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The supplementary information in this 
preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
    B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information for This Final Rule
III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
    A. Applicability
    B. Standards and Compliance Requirements
    C. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
    D. Definitions
IV. Summary of Final Standards
    A. What Are the Applicability Provisions and Compliance Dates?
    B. What Are the Final Standards?
    C. What Are the Compliance Requirements?
    D. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?
V. Summary of Comments and Responses
    A. Rulemaking Process
    B. Applicability
    C. Emission Standards
    D. Inspections and Compliance Provisions
    E. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
    F. Definitions
    G. Impacts Assessment
    H. Title V Requirements
VI. Impacts of the Final Standards
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by the 
final standards are prepared feeds manufacturers who add chromium 
compounds or manganese compounds to their product. In general, the 
facilities potentially affected by the rule are covered under the North 
American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code listed in the 
following table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
            Category             NAICS code \1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry:
    Other Animal Foods                   311119  Animal feeds, prepared
     Manufacturing.                               (except dog and cat),
                                                  manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this 
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 
63.11619 of subpart DDDDDDD (NESHAP for Area Sources: Prepared Feeds 
Manufacturing). If you have any questions regarding the applicability 
of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permit 
authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed 
in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).

B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) 
through EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). A copy of this final 
action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly 
proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology 
exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review 
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
by March 8, 2010. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any 
civil or criminal proceedings

[[Page 523]]

brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate 
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the 
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose 
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for 
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the 
outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration 
to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the 
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation 
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background Information for This Final Rule

    Section 112(d) of the CAA requires EPA to establish national 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for both major 
and area sources of HAP that are listed for regulation under CAA 
section 112(c). A major source emits or has the potential to emit 10 
tons per year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of HAP. An area source is a stationary source that is not a 
major source.
    Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least 
30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the 
greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. 
EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air 
Toxics Strategy, (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, in the 
Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health 
threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the ``30 urban 
HAP.'' Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or 
subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing 
90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to 
regulation. We implemented these requirements through the Integrated 
Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). A primary goal 
of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent reduction in cancer 
incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources.
    Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards 
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of 
generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT) 
by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' 
Additional information on GACT is found in the Senate report on the 
legislation (Senate Report Number 101-228, December 20, 1989), which 
describes GACT as:

    * * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the 
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities 
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.

Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and 
economic impacts in determining GACT. This is particularly important 
when developing regulations for source categories, like this one, that 
have many small businesses, as defined by the Small Business 
Administration.
    Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control 
technologies and management practices that are generally available to 
the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards 
applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine 
if the control technologies and management practices are transferable 
and generally available to area sources. In appropriate circumstances, 
we may also consider technologies and practices at area and major 
sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies 
and practices could be considered generally available for the area 
source category at issue. Finally, as noted above, in determining GACT 
for a particular area source category, we consider the costs and 
economic impacts of available control technologies and management 
practices on that category.
    We are promulgating these national emission standards in response 
to a court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to sign final rules 
establishing emission standards for two source categories listed 
pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k) by December 16, 2009 (Sierra Club 
v. Johnson, no. 01-1537, D.D.C., March 2006). We intend to publish a 
separate rulemaking in the Federal Register for the other source 
category due in December 2009.

III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal

    This final rule contains several changes to the proposed rule as a 
result of public comments. The following sections present a summary of 
the changes to the proposed rule. We explain the reasons for these 
changes in detail in the summary of comments and responses (section V 
of this preamble).

A. Applicability

    The final rule applies to any prepared feeds manufacturing facility 
that produces animal feed products (not including cat and dog feed 
products) and uses a material containing chromium or a material 
containing manganese. In light of questions raised concerning the scope 
of sources covered by this area source rule, we revised several 
definitions in the rule and added other definitions. The prepared feeds 
manufacturing area source category is identified by NAICS code 311119, 
``Other Animal Food Manufacturing.'' This NAICS code includes 
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing animal feed (except 
dog and cat) from ingredients, such as grains, oilseed mill products, 
and meat products. The NAICS definition also contains a list of over 40 
specific animal feed processes that are included in the NAICS code. 
First, we added a definition of ``animal feed,'' and defined that term 
to include all of the products in NAICS code 311119. This definition 
also clarifies that dog and cat feed products are not considered animal 
feed, consistent with the NAICS definition. The final rule, therefore, 
applies not only to ``traditional'' feed products, but also to animal 
feed ingredients, supplements, premixes, concentrates, and other 
products included in the definition of NAICS code 311119. Second, we 
revised the definition of a ``prepared feed manufacturing facility'' to 
include the concept of ``primarily engaged.'' To meet the definition of 
a prepared feeds manufacturing facility, a facility must be ``primarily 
engaged'' in the production of animal feed. We identified that 
primarily engaged in the production of animal feed means that the 
animal feed makes up at least half of the facility's annual production 
of all products. The definition of prepared feed manufacturing facility 
explicitly states that facilities primarily engaged in feeding animals 
are not prepared feed manufacturing facilities. We also added 
definitions for ``a material containing chromium'' and ``a material 
containing

[[Page 524]]

manganese.'' ``A material containing chromium'' is defined as any 
material that contains chromium in an amount greater than 0.1 percent 
by weight, and ``a material containing manganese'' is defined as any 
material that contains manganese in an amount greater than 1 percent by 
weight. We added a requirement to provide for the situation where a 
facility starts using a material containing chromium or manganese after 
the applicable compliance date. Specifically, facilities that are not 
subject to the rule but start adding materials containing chromium or 
manganese in the future become subject to the rule at the time they 
begin adding these HAP. While the rule does not apply to prepared feeds 
manufacturing facilities that do not use any materials containing 
chromium or manganese, we added provisions that make it clear that 
facilities that stop using all materials containing chromium and 
manganese at a later date are no longer subject to the rule.

B. Standards and Compliance Requirements

    The final rule retains the specific housekeeping management 
practices discussed in the proposed rule. Those management practices 
must reduce dust (use industrial vacuum, remove dust from walls and 
ledges, keep doors shut). The only change we made to these provisions 
was to require that doors be kept shut except during normal ingress and 
egress, rather than the proposed requirement to keep doors shut ``as 
practicable.''
    The final rule requires that a device be installed and operated at 
the loadout end of each bulk loader that loads products containing 
chromium or manganese to lessen fugitive emissions by reducing the 
distance between the loading arm and the truck or railcar. This is a 
change from the proposed requirements, which specified that ``drop 
filter socks'' be used on bulk loaders.
    The final rule requires that emissions from the pelleting process 
at facilities with an average daily feed production level exceeding 50 
tons per day (tpd) be collected and routed to a cyclone designed to 
achieve 95 percent or greater reduction in particulate matter (PM) 
emissions. This is a change from the proposed rule, which required a 
cyclone designed to achieve a 95 percent reduction in particulate 
matter emissions less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). To 
demonstrate that your cyclone is designed to achieve a 95 percent 
reduction in PM emissions, the final rule provides three different 
options: (1) Manufacturer's specifications certifying that the cyclone 
is designed to achieve 95 percent PM reduction, (2) certification by a 
professional engineer or responsible official that the cyclone is 
designed to achieve a 95 percent reduction in PM emissions, or (3) a 
Method 5 performance test to demonstrate that the cyclone can achieve a 
95 percent reduction in PM emissions.
    The proposed rule required that the pressure drop across the 
cyclone be monitored to demonstrate that the device was in good 
condition and operating properly. The final rule expands the monitoring 
options to include other measures that indicate proper flow through the 
cyclone. Specifically, the final rule allows monitoring of inlet flow 
rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage.

C. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    The final rule requires that all sources that have an average daily 
feed production level of 50 tpd or less to keep production records. 
These facilities must also submit their initial average daily feed 
production level in the Notification of Compliance Status report.
    We added recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with 
the new options on demonstrating cyclone performance efficiency 
(certification by professional engineer or responsible official, or 
testing). We also added provisions that require facilities that 
discontinue the use of all materials containing chromium and manganese 
to notify the Agency that they are no longer subject to the rule.

D. Definitions

    As discussed above, definitions for animal feed, a material 
containing chromium, a material containing manganese, and prepared 
feeds manufacturing facility were added or modified. The definition of 
filter drop sock was removed, as this term is no longer used in the 
final rule.

IV. Summary of Final Standards

A. What Are the Applicability Provisions and Compliance Dates?

    Subpart DDDDDDD standards apply to each new or existing prepared 
feeds manufacturing facility that is an area source and uses a material 
containing chromium or a material containing manganese. A prepared 
feeds manufacturing facility is a facility where animal feed (as 
defined in the rule) makes up at least half of the facility's annual 
production of all products. A material containing chromium is any 
material that contains chromium in an amount greater than 0.1 percent 
by weight, and a material containing manganese is any material that 
contains manganese in an amount greater than 1 percent by weight.
    All existing area source facilities subject to this rule are 
required to comply with the rule requirements no later than January 5, 
2012. A new source is any affected source that commenced construction 
or reconstruction after July 27, 2009. All new sources are required to 
comply with the rule requirements by January 5, 2010 or upon startup, 
whichever is later.
    Prepared feeds manufacturing facilities that do not use any 
materials containing chromium or manganese are not subject to this 
rule. If a facility starts using a material containing chromium or 
manganese after the applicable compliance date, they will be required 
to comply at the time that they start using such materials. Also, if a 
facility stops using all materials containing chromium and manganese, 
they are no longer subject to the rule and should notify EPA or the 
delegated authority of the change.

B. What Are the Final Standards?

    The final requirements, which apply to all new and existing 
sources, consist of equipment standards and management practices. There 
are two general management practices that apply in all areas where 
materials containing chromium or manganese are stored, used, or 
handled. The first is to perform housekeeping measures to minimize 
excess dust that could contain chromium or manganese. The specific 
measures required by the rule are: (1) Use either an industrial vacuum 
system or manual sweeping to reduce the amount of dust, (2) at least 
once per month, remove dust from walls, ledges, and equipment using low 
pressure air or by other means, and then sweep or vacuum the area, and 
(3) keep doors shut except during normal ingress and egress.
    The second general management practice is the requirement to 
maintain and operate all process equipment that stores, processes, or 
contains chromium or manganese in accordance with manufacturers' 
specifications and in a manner to minimize dust creation.
    There are also requirements that are specific to certain areas of 
the plant or processes at all new and existing sources. These 
requirements are:
     For the storage area, all raw materials containing 
chromium or manganese must be stored in closed containers.

[[Page 525]]

     For mixing operations, materials containing chromium or 
manganese must be added to the mixer in a manner to reduce emissions, 
and the mixer must be covered at all times when mixing is occurring, 
except when materials are being added.
     For bulk loading processes where prepared feeds products 
containing chromium or manganese are loaded into trucks or railcars, 
you must use a device at the loadout end of each bulk loader to lessen 
fugitive emissions by reducing the distance between the loading arm and 
the truck or railcar.
    In addition to the above requirements that apply to all facilities, 
new and existing facilities with average daily feed production levels 
exceeding 50 tpd are required to install and operate a cyclone to 
reduce emissions from pelleting and pellet cooling operations. The 
average daily feed production level means the average amount of 
prepared feed product produced each operating day over an annual 
period. The initial determination of the average daily feed production 
level is based on the one-year period prior to the compliance date for 
existing sources, or the design rate for new sources. Subsequent 
average daily feed production levels are then determined annually and 
are based on the amount of animal feed product produced in the calendar 
year divided by the number of days in which the production processes 
were in operation. Facilities with average daily feed production levels 
of 50 tpd or less are required to submit production information in 
their Notification of Compliance Status report and keep records 
documenting their animal feed production levels.
    For the pelleting operations at facilities with daily pelleting 
production levels exceeding 50 tpd, the final rule requires that PM 
emissions be collected and routed to a cyclone that is designed to 
achieve 95 percent or greater reduction in PM. There are three ways you 
can demonstrate that your cyclone is designed to achieve 95 percent 
reduction in PM: (1) Manufacturer specifications that certifying the 
cyclone is designed to achieve 95 percent reduction in PM emissions; 
(2) certification by a professional engineer or responsible official 
that the cyclone is designed to achieve a 95 or greater percent 
reduction in PM emissions; or (3) a one-time Method 5 performance test 
to demonstrate that the cyclone can achieve a 95 percent or greater 
reduction in PM emissions.
    In addition, the final rule requires that you establish an 
operating parameter range that indicates proper operation of the 
cyclone and then monitor this parameter at least once per day. The 
specific parameters allowed to be monitored are inlet flow rate, inlet 
velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage. The range that represents 
proper operation of the cyclone must be provided by the manufacturer, 
determined as part of the engineering calculations demonstrating the 
design efficiency, or determined based on monitoring conducted during 
the performance test.
    The final rule also requires that you maintain the cyclone in 
accordance with manufacturer specifications. If manufacturer 
specifications are not available, you must develop and follow standard 
maintenance procedures.

C. What Are the Compliance Requirements?

    For all new and existing sources, compliance with the final 
regulation is demonstrated through installation of the required 
equipment, adherence to the management practices specified in the rule, 
and keeping the required records and submitting the required 
notifications and reports described below.
    To ensure that the cyclone for the pelleting and pellet cooling 
process is operated properly at facilities with average daily feed 
production levels exceeding 50 tpd, the final rule requires that the 
cyclone be inspected quarterly for corrosion, erosion, or any other 
damage that could result in air in-leakage, and that the inlet flow 
rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage be monitored and 
recorded daily to ensure that it is being operated in accordance with 
specified proper operating range.
    The final rule also requires that the devices required at the 
loadout end of a bulk loader to lessen fugitive emissions by containing 
the unloaded product within the device be inspected monthly to ensure 
that they are in good condition.

D. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

    All new and existing sources are required to comply with some 
requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), 
which are identified in Table 1 of the final rule. The General 
Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, 
recordkeeping, and reporting. Each facility is required to submit an 
Initial Notification and a one-time Notification of Compliance Status 
according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 in the General Provisions. 
The Initial Notification, which is required to be submitted by affected 
sources not later than May 5, 2010, or 120 days after you become 
subject to the rule, whichever is later, must contain basic information 
about the facility and its operations. The Notification of Compliance 
Status, which is required to be submitted 120 days after the compliance 
date, must contain a statement that the source has complied with all 
relevant standards. The Notification of Compliance Status also must 
include the inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan 
amperage range that constitutes proper operation of the cyclone used to 
reduce emissions from the pelleting and pellet cooling operations. 
Facilities not required to install and operate cyclones on their 
pelleting operations are required to submit documentation of their 
initial average daily feed production level.
    The final rule requires that records be kept of all notifications 
of compliance. The rule requires that records be kept documenting each 
inspection of a cyclone and each inspection of a device at the loadout 
end of a bulk loader. It also requires that the daily reading of 
cyclone inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage 
be recorded. In addition, records are required of any actions taken in 
response to findings of the inspections or monitoring results outside 
the proper operating range. Facilities with average daily feed 
production levels of 50 tpd or less are required to keep records of the 
annual production and the number of days of operation.
    The final rule includes the requirement to prepare, by March 1 of 
each year, and submit an annual compliance certification, a copy of 
which will need to be maintained on site. This report must contain a 
statement of whether the source has complied with all relevant 
standards and other requirements of the final rule. If a deviation from 
the standard occurred during the annual reporting period, or if an 
instance occurred where the cyclone inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, 
pressure drop, or fan amperage was outside of the proper operating 
range submitted in the Notification of Compliance Status report, this 
information is required to be included in the annual report and the 
report needs to be submitted to the EPA Administrator or the designated 
authority. All records are required to be maintained in a form suitable 
and readily available for expeditious review, and kept for at least 
five years, the first two of which must be onsite.

[[Page 526]]

V. Summary of Comments and Responses

    EPA received 16 public comment letters on the proposed rule. Five 
of these comment letters were requests for an extension to the comment 
period,\1\ leaving 11 comment letters that provided comments on the 
proposed rule. These comments were received from industry 
representatives, trade associations, state agencies, and an 
environmental organization. Sections V.A through V.G of this preamble 
provide responses to the public comments received on the proposed 
NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We denied the requests for extension by letter, copies of 
which are in the docket. These letters explain the reasons for the 
denial. These reasons are also provided in section V.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Rulemaking Process

    Comment: Several commenters requested that the comment period be 
extended by 90 days. The commenters had concerns about the inputs to 
the impacts analysis and requested additional time to collect and 
provide factual information to the agency about the proposed rule's 
provisions and their potential impact.
    Response: Due to a court-ordered deadline for promulgation of this 
rule (which at the time of proposal was November 16, 2009), we were 
unable to extend the comment period in response to these requests. 
Moreover, CAA section 307(d) requires that EPA provide a minimum of 30 
days for public comment, and we provided that period for public 
comment. Furthermore, consistent with section 307(d), the proposed rule 
provided the public an opportunity to request a public hearing, and no 
party requested such a hearing. See 307(d)(5) (record remains open 30 
days after the date of the public hearing).
    Comment: One commenter expressed their concerns about the process 
that EPA used to develop its proposed national emission standard for 
prepared feeds manufacturers. The commenter believes that EPA did not 
provide ample due process in developing the proposed rule. The 
commenter pointed out that they requested a 90-day extension to the 
proposed rule's comment period so that accurate information could be 
obtained to respond to the assumptions and estimates made by the 
agency. In this request, the commenter indicated that they highlighted 
five major areas of the proposed rule in which they believed EPA lacked 
critical information that directly affects the provisions within the 
proposed rule and its impact on prepared feeds manufacturers. Since EPA 
denied their request for extension of the comment period, the commenter 
indicated that they were left with what they believe was an 
inappropriately short 30-day comment period to respond to a proposed 
rule that, if promulgated as drafted, would have very significant 
operational and economic impacts on prepared feeds manufacturers. While 
cognizant of EPA's court-ordered mandate to issue this national 
emission standard, the commenter believes that the agency's actions 
related to gathering industry information, timing of the proposed rule 
and its response to their request for extension of the comment period 
are not indicative of a constructive or meaningful rulemaking process.
    Response: EPA complied with the requirements of 307(d) during this 
rulemaking process. We engaged industry prior to proposal by meeting 
and by telephone to discuss our rulemaking process and the information 
we intended to obtain through the 114 survey. EPA strongly disagrees 
with the commenters' assertion that EPA did not provide ample due 
process in developing the rule.
    CAA 307(d) requires EPA to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking 
and provide a minimum of 30 days for the public to comment on the 
proposal, and EPA complied with this requirement. EPA also identified a 
date for public hearing, if such hearing was requested by any member of 
the public. No member of the public requested a hearing, and therefore, 
a public hearing was not held.
    In conclusion, we believe that lines of communication with the 
industry were well established and open throughout the rulemaking 
process, and that the commenters had ample opportunity to participate.

B. Applicability

    Comment: Two commenters stated that the rule should clarify that a 
prepared feeds manufacturing facility is a facility that produces 
feeds, and not a facility that manufactures feed ingredients. One of 
the commenters explained that although feed ingredient companies may 
predominantly manufacture ingredients for animal feed and be classified 
under the NAICS Code defining the Prepared Feeds Manufacturing source 
category (NAICS 311119), they may also produce feed ingredients for 
human and/or companion animal consumption.
    Response: EPA would like to clarify that, in addition to facilities 
that produce animal feed, facilities that manufacture feed ingredients 
are part of the prepared feeds manufacturing area source category. The 
category was identified in the original section 112(k) emissions 
inventory through the use of the Standard Industrial Classification 
(SIC) code 2048, Prepared Feeds Manufacturing, except cat and dog feed. 
As noted by the commenter, the NAICS code that covers this area source 
category is 311119, which is equivalent to the SIC code used in the 
original source category definition. The SIC/NAICS code for the source 
category includes many segments of the prepared feed industry, 
including the production of feed ingredients. Specifically, in addition 
to many other segments of the industry, NAICS code 311119, and thus the 
prepared feeds manufacturing area source category, includes:
     Feed concentrates, animal, manufacturing;
     Feed premixes, animal, manufacturing;
     Feed supplements, animal (except cat, dog), manufacturing;
     Micro and macro premixes, livestock, manufacturing;
     Mineral feed supplements (except cat, dog) manufacturing; 
and
     Mineral supplements, animal (except cat, dog), 
manufacturing.
    Therefore, since facilities that manufacture feed ingredients are 
subject to the rule, we did not make the change suggested by the 
commenter. We did, however, make changes to the applicability 
provisions and definitions to clarify the various segments of the 
prepared feeds industry that are included in the source category and, 
therefore, subject to the rule (provided they use chromium or 
manganese). These changes include adding a definition of ``animal 
feed,'' which includes a list of all the products included under NAICS 
code 311119. While we recognize that chromium and manganese are not 
used in the production of many of the animal feed products in the 
definition, we believe that a complete listing eliminates the confusion 
of what types of processes are included in the source category. We 
would point out, however, that, even if a facility produces a listed 
animal feed product (e.g., earthworm feed and bedding), it is not 
subject to the rule if no chromium or manganese is used.
    One of the commenters raised the issue of a facility that produces 
a product covered by the rule along with other similar products that 
would not be covered by the rule. Specifically, the commenter mentions 
a facility that produces animal feed ingredients along with feed 
ingredients for humans and/or cats and dogs. First, the NAICS code only 
includes establishments ``primarily engaged in'' manufacturing animal 
feed.

[[Page 527]]

We have revised the definition of ``prepared feed manufacturing 
facility'' to incorporate this concept. Specifically, the final rule 
contains the following definition.

    Prepared feeds manufacturing facility means a facility that is 
primarily engaged in manufacturing animal feed. A facility is 
primarily engaged in manufacturing animal feed if the production of 
animal feed comprises greater than 50 percent of the total 
production of the facility on an annual basis. Facilities primarily 
engaged in raising or feeding animals are not considered prepared 
feeds manufacturing facilities.

Thus, a facility would be a prepared feeds manufacturing facility 
subject to the rule if the animal feed ingredients (not including 
ingredients for dog, cat, or human feed) make up more than half of its 
production. In addition, the final rule specifies that an affected 
source at a prepared feeds manufacturing facility only includes the 
collection of equipment and activities necessary to produce animal feed 
containing chromium or manganese. Therefore, if the ingredients for 
human and/or dog and cat feed at a facility primarily engaged in 
manufacturing animal feed were produced in equipment that is never used 
to produce ``animal feed,'' those production processes would not be 
part of the affected source and would not be subject to the 
requirements in the rule. While not specifically mentioned by the 
commenters, consideration of these applicability issues, along with 
comments related to the number of facilities in the source category, 
caused us to clarify that prepared feeds manufacturing at farms and 
animal feed lots is not part of this source category. Facilities 
``primarily engaged'' in raising or feeding animals are listed under 
different NAICS codes (e.g., 112210--Hog and Pig Farming, 112112--
Cattle Feedlots, 112111--Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming) and were not 
part of the sources that formed the basis for the listing of the 
prepared feed manufacturing area source category.
    Comment: Five commenters stated that the rule should only apply to 
prepared feeds manufacturing facilities that use or emit chromium 
compounds or manganese compounds above a specified threshold. The 
commenters claimed that such an approach would focus attention on 
facilities that are more significant emitters of chromium and manganese 
and will avoid requiring extremely small facilities to comply with the 
rule with little environmental benefit. The commenters suggested 
several different threshold levels. One commenter recommended a 
threshold based on established Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization 
Act of 1986 (SARA) Tier II threshold quantities (10,000 pounds per 
year), while another suggested 2,000 pounds per year based on levels 
determined to be insignificant under the title V program. Another 
commenter noted that Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) regulations require 
a covered facility to report only if it manufactures or processes non-
exempt chromium and/or manganese compounds in quantities exceeding 
25,000 pounds per year, and suggested that a threshold be established 
at this 25,000 pounds per year level. Still another commenter suggested 
a level of 1,000 pounds per day. One of the commenters recommended 
that, if such a threshold is established, compounds having a 
concentration of less than 1 percent of the chromium compounds or 
manganese compounds need not be counted by a facility when determining 
whether it has used a sufficient quantity to reach the threshold use 
level that establishes whether a facility is subject to the rule's 
provisions.
    Response: Although several commenters advocated for a usage 
threshold for chromium compounds and manganese compounds, below which a 
facility would be exempt, we are not adopting any exemptions. Prepared 
Feeds Manufacturing is one of the area source categories needed to meet 
the section 112(c)(3) requirement that we subject to regulation, (i.e., 
area source categories representing 90 percent of the emissions of 
chromium and manganese). We reviewed the listing decision for this area 
source category and did not identify any information suggesting that 
small sources were not included in the listing decision. As such, we do 
not believe we can satisfy our requirement to regulate sources 
representing 90 percent of the emissions of Prepared Feeds 
Manufacturing urban HAP unless we subject all sources that emit those 
HAP to the rule.
    We recognize that the Prepared Feeds Manufacturing source category 
is comprised of a large number of relatively small facilities. Although 
area sources individually may be considered low-emitting sources, 
collectively, they are not. The commenter's suggestion fails to address 
the requirement of section 112(c)(3), and, as discussed above, we 
previously determined that we need to subject the Prepared Feeds 
Manufacturing area source category to regulations in order to meet the 
requirement that EPA regulate area sources accounting for 90 percent of 
the emissions of the 30 urban HAP.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the applicability be changed 
to only include facilities that utilize pelletizing operations. The 
commenter noted that this would more adequately match the original 
group of prepared feeds manufacturers who were surveyed and those in 
the same class. The commenter also pointed out that the pelleting and 
pellet cooling process is the most significant source of pollutants, as 
it is estimated to emit 90 percent or more of the total chromium and 
manganese.
    Response: The basis for the listing of the area source category was 
not limited to emissions from pelleting. Thus, we conclude that the 
applicability should remain as proposed.

C. Emission Standards

1. General
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA based the proposed standard 
on erroneous and misguided assumptions and estimates of emissions of 
chromium compounds and manganese compounds. This commenter had numerous 
objections to the impacts analyses (see section V.G) and how these 
analyses impacted EPA's decision to regulate this category and specific 
emission points.
    Response: In section 112(c)(3) of the CAA, EPA is required to list 
``sufficient categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that 
area source representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban 
HAP are subject to regulation.'' An area source emissions inventory was 
compiled for each of the 30 urban HAP and the area source categories 
identified that comprised 90 percent of the emissions of each of these 
HAP. For the prepared feeds manufacturing source category, this 
inventory was based on data from the 1990 TRI. The TRI is an EPA 
inventory of annual emissions self-reported by industry. Based on this 
information, EPA determined that chromium compounds emissions and 
manganese compounds emissions from prepared feeds manufacturing area 
sources needed to be regulated to achieve the 90 percent requirement in 
CAA section 112(c)(3). Therefore, the decision to regulate emissions of 
chromium compounds and manganese compounds from the prepared feeds 
manufacturing industry was based on emissions data submitted directly 
by the industry. The information and analyses referred to by the 
commenter were prepared to evaluate potential impacts of regulatory 
options. This information had no bearing on the basic decision to 
develop regulations for the prepared feeds manufacturing area source 
category.
    The commenter is also incorrect with respect to how emission points 
were identified for regulation. They assume that the information 
compiled for the

[[Page 528]]

impacts analyses was used as the basis to identify emission points for 
regulation. Rather, chromium and manganese emission points were 
identified primarily based on information submitted directly by the 
industry. Specifically, we conducted a survey of the industry, and 
responses were received for over 100 prepared feeds manufacturing 
facilities. In the responses to this survey, prepared feeds 
manufacturing facilities identified potential emission sources and 
reported controls and management practices that were being used. This 
information formed the basis for the decisions regarding the emission 
points and process areas for which standards were proposed.
    In conclusion, the commenter raised several issues on the impacts 
analyses (see section V.G below). However, the issues associated with 
these analyses did not influence the basic decision to regulate this 
source category or the decisions on the specific emission sources that 
would be regulated.
    Comment: One commenter asserted that, ``* * * The legislative 
history of Sec.  112 explains that Congress intended GACT standards to 
reflect `methods, practices and techniques which are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by sources in the category 
considering economic impacts and technical capabilities of the firms to 
operate and maintain emission control systems'.''
    The commenter also asserted that, although EPA used its discretion 
to issue GACT standards and that Sec.  112(d)(5) authorizes EPA to do 
so, that decision is subject to administrative law requirements. The 
commenter asserted that EPA's decision is arbitrary and capricious 
because that decision was not supported with a rational explanation.
    Response: As the commenter recognizes, in CAA section 112(d)(5), 
Congress gave EPA explicit authority to issue alternative emission 
standards for area sources. Specifically, CAA section 112(d)(5), which 
is entitled ``Alternative standard for area sources,'' provides:

    With respect only to categories and subcategories of area 
sources listed pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, the 
Administrator may, in lieu of the authorities provided in paragraph 
(2) and subsection (f) of this section, elect to promulgate 
standards or requirements applicable to sources in such categories 
or subcategories which provide for the use of generally available 
control technologies or management practices by such sources to 
reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.

See CAA section 112(d)(5) (Emphasis added).

    There are two critical aspects to CAA section 112(d)(5). First, CAA 
section 112(d)(5) applies only to those categories and subcategories of 
area sources listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c). The commenter does 
not dispute that EPA listed the area source category noted above 
pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3). Second, CAA section 112(d)(5) 
provides that, for area sources listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c), 
EPA ``may, in lieu of'' the authorities provided in CAA section 
112(d)(2) and 112(f), elect to promulgate standards pursuant to CAA 
section 112(d)(5). CAA Section 112(d)(2) provides that emission 
standards established under that provision ``require the maximum degree 
of reduction in emissions'' of HAP (also known as maximum achievable 
control technology or MACT). CAA section 112(d)(3), in turn, defines 
what constitutes the ``maximum degree of reduction in emissions'' for 
new and existing sources. See CAA section 112(d)(3).\2\ Webster's 
dictionary defines the phrase ``in lieu of'' to mean ``in the place 
of'' or ``instead of.'' See Webster's II New Riverside University 
(1994). Thus, CAA section 112(d)(5) authorizes EPA to promulgate 
standards under CAA section 112(d)(5) that provide for the use of GACT, 
instead of issuing MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and 
(d)(3). The statute does not set any condition precedent for issuing 
standards under CAA section 112(d)(5) other than that the area source 
category or subcategory at issue must be one that EPA listed pursuant 
to CAA section 112(c), which is the case here.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Specifically, CAA section 112(d)(3) sets the minimum degree 
of emission reduction that MACT standards must achieve, which is 
known as the MACT floor. For new sources, the degree of emission 
reduction shall not be less stringent than the emission control that 
is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, and 
for existing sources, the degree of emission reduction shall not be 
less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the 
best performing 12 percent of the existing sources for which the 
Administrator has emissions information. CAA Section 112(d)(2) 
directs EPA to consider whether more stringent emission reductions 
(so called beyond-the-floor limits) are technologically achievable 
considering, among other things, the cost of achieving the emission 
reduction.
    \3\ CAA Section 112(d)(5) also references CAA section 112(f). 
See CAA section 112(f)(5) (entitled ``Area Sources'' and providing 
that EPA is not required to conduct a review or promulgate standards 
under CAA section 112(f) for any area source category or subcategory 
listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3), and for which an emission 
standard is issued pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disagree with the commenter's assertion that we must provide a 
rationale for issuing GACT standards under section 112(d)(5), instead 
of MACT standards. Had Congress intended that EPA first conduct a MACT 
analysis for each area source category, Congress would have stated so 
expressly in section 112(d)(5). Congress did not require EPA to conduct 
any MACT analysis, floor analysis or beyond-the-floor analysis before 
the Agency could issue a section 112(d)(5) standard. Rather, Congress 
authorized EPA to issue GACT standards for area source categories 
listed under section 112(c), and that is precisely what EPA has done in 
this rulemaking.
    Although EPA has no obligation to justify why it is issuing a GACT 
standard for an area source category as opposed to a MACT standard, we 
did explain at proposal that being able to consider costs and economic 
impacts is important when establishing standards for a category like 
this with many small sources. Furthermore, EPA must set a GACT standard 
that is consistent with the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(5) and 
have a reasoned basis for its GACT determination. As explained in the 
proposed rule and below. The legislative history supporting section 
112(d)(5) provides that GACT is to encompass:

    ``* * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the 
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities 
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control 
systems.''

The discussion in the Senate report clearly provides that EPA may 
consider costs in determining what constitutes GACT for the area source 
category. Congress plainly recognized that area sources differ from 
major sources, which is why Congress allowed EPA to consider costs in 
setting GACT standards for area sources under section 112(d)(5), but 
did not allow that consideration in setting MACT floors for major 
sources pursuant to section 112(d)(3). This important dichotomy between 
section 112(d)(3) and section 112(d)(5) provides further evidence that 
Congress sought to do precisely what the title of section 112(d)(5) 
states, i.e., provide EPA the authority to issue ``alternative 
standards for area sources.''

    Notwithstanding the commenter's claim, EPA properly issued 
standards for the area source categories at issue here under section 
112(d)(5), and in doing so provided a reasoned basis for its selection 
of GACT for these area source categories. As explained in the proposed 
rule, EPA evaluated the control technologies and management practices 
that reduce HAP emissions at Prepared Feeds Manufacturing area source 
facilities. In its evaluation, EPA used information on pollution

[[Page 529]]

prevention from industry trade associations, and reviewed operating 
permits to identify the emission controls and management practices that 
are currently used to control volatile and particulate HAP emissions. 
We also considered technologies and practices at major and area sources 
in similar categories.
    Finally, even though not required, EPA did provide a rationale for 
why it set a GACT standard in the proposed rule. In the proposal, we 
explained that the facilities in the source categories at issue are 
already well controlled for the urban HAP for which the source category 
was listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3). Consideration of costs and 
economic impacts proves especially important for the well-controlled 
area sources at issue in this final action. Given the current, well 
controlled emission levels, a MACT floor determination, where costs 
cannot be considered, could result in only marginal reductions in 
emissions at very high costs for modest incremental improvement in 
control for the area source category.
    Comment: One commenter questioned why EPA was not considering 
regulation for all HAP emissions. The commenter explained that, as 
documented in the record for this rulemaking, that Prepared Feed 
Manufacturing facilities often generate emissions other than manganese, 
such as arsenic and arsenic compounds, benzene, beryllium and beryllium 
compounds, cadmium and cadmium compounds, chlorine, cobalt and cobalt 
compounds, formaldehyde, hexane, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen fluoride, 
lead and lead compounds, mercury and mercury compounds, naphthalene, 
nickel and nickel compounds, polycyclic organic matter, selenium and 
selenium compounds, and toluene. The commenter acknowledged that 
management practices and PM controls required by the rule will likely 
reduce other metal HAP emissions to some degree; however they indicated 
that the Agency failed to quantify this benefit. The commenter also 
indicated that EPA should consider controls for other HAPs that will 
not be co-controlled with the manganese and chromium.
    Response: Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify 
at least 30 HAP emitted from area sources that pose the greatest threat 
to public health in the largest number of urban areas (the ``Urban 
HAP'') and identify the area source categories emitting such pollutants 
that are or will be listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3). Section 
112(c)(3), in relevant part, provides:

    The Administrator shall * * *, pursuant to subsection (k)(3)(B) 
of this section, list, based on actual or estimated aggregate 
emissions of a listed pollutant or pollutants, sufficient categories 
or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources 
representing 90 percent of the area source emissions of the 30 
hazardous air pollutants that present the greatest threat to public 
health in the largest number of urban areas are subject to 
regulation under this section.

Thus, section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or 
subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing 
90 percent of the area source emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject 
to regulation. Section 112(d)(1) requires the Administrator to 
promulgate regulations establishing emissions standards for each area 
source category of HAP listed for regulation pursuant to section 
112(c).
    EPA identified the 30 Urban HAP that posed the greatest threat to 
public health in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (Strategy). 
In the Strategy and subsequent Federal Register notices, EPA listed the 
area source categories necessary to meet the 90 percent requirement in 
section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), and one of those categories was the 
Prepared Feeds Manufacturing area source category.
    We have interpreted sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B) together to 
require EPA to regulate only those Urban HAP emissions for which an 
area source category is listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3), not all 
urban HAP or all section 112(b) HAP emitted from a listed area source 
category. As stated above, section 112(k)(3)(B) addresses the strategy 
to control HAP from area sources in urban areas and the focus of the 
strategy as it relates to control of area sources is on the 30 HAP that 
pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of 
urban areas. Section 112(c)(3) specifically references section 
112(k)(3)(B) as the basis for selecting area sources for listing to 
satisfy the Agency's responsibility for regulating urban HAP emissions 
from area sources. Under these provisions, area sources categories are 
listed because they emit one or more of the 30 listed Urban HAP and the 
Agency has identified the category as one that is necessary to satisfy 
the requirement to subject area sources representing 90 percent of the 
area source emissions of the 30 urban HAP to regulation.
    EPA listed the Prepared Feeds Manufacturing area source category 
pursuant to sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B). We must regulate only 
the chromium and manganese emissions from the Prepared Feeds 
Manufacturing area source category, as these are the urban HAP 
emissions for which the category was listed to meet the 90 percent 
requirement in sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B). See 112(c)(3) (EPA 
must ``ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the area 
source emissions of the 30 hazardous air pollutants * * * are subject 
to regulation.''). We recognize that the source category emits other 
section 112(b) HAP, including other urban HAP; however, as stated 
above, sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B) do not require the Agency to 
regulate the area source category for any HAP other than those for 
which the category was listed. As to the other urban HAP emitted from 
this category, we have identified other area source categories that 
emit these urban HAP and subjecting those area source categories to 
regulation will satisfy the requirement to subject to regulation area 
sources that account for 90 percent of the area source emissions of 
those urban HAP.
    While the Agency is not required to regulate all section 112(b) HAP 
from area sources listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and 
112(k)(3)(B), section 112 of the CAA does not preclude EPA from 
regulating other HAP from these area sources at our discretion and in 
appropriate circumstances. Section 112(d)(5) states that, for area 
sources listed pursuant to section 112(c), the Administrator may, in 
lieu of section 112(d)(2) ``MACT'' standards, promulgate standards or 
requirements ``applicable to sources'' which provide for the use of 
GACT or management practices ``to reduce emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants.'' This provision does not limit EPA's authority to regulate 
only those urban HAP emissions for which the category is needed to 
achieve the 90 percent requirement in sections 112(k)(3)(B) and 
112(c)(3). In fact, in two other area source rules, in addition to 
regulating the urban HAP that were necessary to satisfy the 90 percent 
requirement in sections 112(k)(3)(B) and 112(c)(3), we regulated 
additional section 112(b) HAP. Specifically, in the chemical 
manufacturing area source rule and the paint and allied products area 
source rule, although not required, we exercised our discretion to 
regulate other section 112(b) HAP beyond the urban HAP for which the 
categories were listed under section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), including 
non-urban section 112(b) HAP. The chemical manufacturing area source 
rule and the paints and allied products area source rule both involve 
specific circumstances which EPA believes justify regulating organic 
and metal section 112(b) HAP in

[[Page 530]]

addition to the specific urban HAP needed to meet the 90 percent 
requirement in section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), which served as the 
basis for the listing of the categories. In the chemical manufacturing 
area source rule, which establishes standards for 9 area source 
categories, we regulated such HAP because the emission standards 
designed to control the urban HAP for which the categories were listed 
were equally effective at removing other urban and non-urban metal and 
organic HAP, and demonstrating compliance for total HAP was less 
burdensome than demonstrating compliance for speciated HAP for those 
sources required to install add-on controls. In the paint and allied 
products area source rule, we included emission standards for HAP 
beyond the urban HAP for which the category was listed because the 
emission standards designed to control those urban HAP would also 
control other urban and non-urban metal and organic HAP.
    In conclusion, we believe that we have appropriately exercised our 
discretion in regulating only the chromium and manganese emissions from 
the prepared feeds manufacturing area source category. Therefore, we 
did not make any changes in the final rule based on this comment.
2. Housekeeping Management Practices
    Comment: One commenter claimed that the Agency's proposed 
housekeeping practices are ``overreaching,'' ``unfounded,'' and 
``unnecessary.'' The commenter believed that EPA had no basis for 
correlating housekeeping practices with ambient air concentrations of 
chromium compounds or manganese compounds.
    The commenter also had concerns with regard to two of the specific 
plant-wide housekeeping requirements proposed. The commenter argued 
that the requirement that dust be removed from walls, ledges and 
equipment at least once per month is not performance-orientated and 
fails to consider individual facility operations or existing management 
practices. The commenter also disagreed with the Agency's assertion 
that air flow through open doors `stirs-up' dust and causes chromium 
compounds and manganese compounds to be emitted into the atmosphere. 
Therefore, the commenter opposed the proposed requirement that affected 
facilities keep doors shut, as practicable. In addition, the commenter 
also expressed concern over the facilities ability to comply with this 
requirement as they questioned what would be the parameters set/used to 
determine that having a door shut is not practicable.
    The commenter noted that prepared feeds manufacturing facilities 
already comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration's 
(OSHA) Grain Handling Standard (29 CFR 1910.272) and the Food and Drug 
Administration's (FDA's) Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs) 
for Medicated Feeds (21 CFR part 225), and that they are regularly 
inspected by Federal and State authorities. Because of this, the 
commenter believed that EPA's proposed housekeeping practices are 
unnecessary. The commenter provided more detailed descriptions of these 
two programs.

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Grain 
Handling Standard (29 CFR 1910.272): This standard requires 
facilities to ``develop and implement a written housekeeping program 
that establishes the frequency and method(s) determined best to 
reduce accumulations of fugitive grain dust on ledges, floors, 
equipment and other exposed surfaces'' throughout the entire 
facility. OSHA's housekeeping requirements are performance-oriented, 
allowing facilities the flexibility to design housekeeping programs 
to achieve compliance through methods that are most effective for 
individual facilities and operations.
    FDA's Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs) for Medicated 
Feeds (21 CFR 225): The vast majority of prepared feed manufacturers 
are mandated to comply with CGMPs that require buildings and 
equipment be maintained and kept in a reasonably clean and orderly 
manner to avoid the potential adulteration of feed products. 
Regarding this provision, FDA's compliance program guidance states, 
``Accumulated dust or residue will be considered objectionable when 
there is a likelihood that the material could contribute to 
significant contamination of animal feed.'' Similar to the OSHA 
requirement, FDA's housekeeping standard also is performance-
orientated. The CGMP regulations allow facilities to implement those 
housekeeping practices that are effective for their individual 
operations and achieve compliance with the standard.

    Another commenter recommended that instead of the specific 
requirements, facilities be required to maintain a management plan to 
minimize excess dust. The commenter said that this plan can be 
maintained on site, available for review by the delegated authority.
    Response: The commenter claimed that EPA has no basis for 
correlating housekeeping practices with ambient air concentrations. 
Under section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA, EPA determined that chromium and 
manganese were 2 of the 30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from 
area sources, pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest 
number of urban areas. Section 112(c)(3) of the CAA requires EPA to 
list sufficient categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure 
that there are sources representing 90 percent of the emissions of each 
of the 30 urban HAP are subject to regulation. We determined that the 
chromium and manganese emissions from prepared feeds manufacturing area 
sources need to be subject to regulation to meet this 90 percent 
requirement for these two HAP. Additionally, under CAA section 
112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards that represent GACT. As 
cited above, the legislative history supporting section 112(d)(5) 
provides that GACT is to encompass:

    ``* * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the 
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities 
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control 
systems.''

Section 112(d)(5) calls for EPA to establish GACT standards that are 
designed to reduce HAP emissions. Nothing in these provisions requires 
EPA to justify GACT regulations based on a correlation between ambient 
concentrations and emissions from a specific emissions source.

    We based our GACT determinations on methods, practices, and 
techniques commonly employed in the prepared feeds manufacturing 
industry. Based on the available information, we concluded that every 
prepared feeds manufacturing facility performed general housekeeping 
practices and maintained equipment in an effort to reduce dust and 
thus, particulate emissions. We appreciate the information provided by 
the commenter that confirms this conclusion, along with the details of 
the regulatory programs that require these measures.
    We disagree with the commenter that including GACT housekeeping 
practices is unnecessary. As noted above, section 112(d)(5) requires 
EPA to establish national standards. The fact that OSHA and FDA have 
similar requirements has no relevance here, especially since they allow 
facilities to establish individual (and potentially dissimilar) 
standards. Therefore, the final rule maintains specific housekeeping 
requirements to minimize dust and does not include a requirement to 
develop site-specific management practices.
    As noted above, we had information prior to proposal that made it 
clear that housekeeping practices to minimize dust were widespread. We 
concluded that GACT was ``continual housekeeping practices to reduce 
dust that can contain chromium compounds

[[Page 531]]

and manganese compounds.'' (74 FR 36985) However, we did not have 
information from a good cross section of the industry on specific 
practices employed. We solicited information from one of the major 
prepared feeds manufacturers to identify some specific practices 
employed in the industry, and included them in the proposed rule. At 
proposal, we acknowledged the potential limitations of the examples of 
practices proposed, and specifically requested comment on these 
measures. We also requested additional general management practices 
commonly employed throughout the industry.
    The commenter expressed concerns with regard to the proposed 
housekeeping practices, but they were not responsive to our request for 
additional practices used throughout the industry. While the commenter 
did not provide any suggestions to address their concerns (other than 
the suggestion to remove the practices entirely), we recognize the 
issues raised in the comments provided on the specific management 
practices and have considered them.
    The commenter stated that the requirement that dust be removed from 
walls, ledges and equipment at least once per month is not performance-
orientated and fails to consider individual facility operations or 
existing management practices. It is clear that all prepared feeds 
manufacturing facilities must remove dust from walls, ledges, and 
equipment periodically in order to comply with the OSHA requirement. 
The commenter did not provide any alternative to the monthly 
requirement, and our follow-up calls to feed manufacturing facilities 
indicated that monthly is a reasonable time frame. In fact, these calls 
show that many areas of the plant are cleaned more frequently than 
monthly. Therefore, the final rule retains the requirement to remove 
dust from walls, ledges, and equipment on a monthly basis.
    The proposed requirement to keep doors closed was the result of a 
recommendation from a prepared feeds manufacturer. However, we 
appreciate the concerns regarding potential compliance confusion with 
the proposed requirement to keep doors closed ``as practicable.'' 
Therefore, the final rule states that doors must remain closed ``except 
during normal ingress and egress.''
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the general 
housekeeping requirements would apply to all areas of the affected 
facility, even though all areas of the affected facility may not be 
involved with the storage and/or use of chromium compounds or manganese 
compounds.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that there is no need to 
perform these management practices in areas where chromium or manganese 
are never present. Therefore, we have changed this language in the 
final rule to specify that the general management practices apply in 
``all areas of the affected source where materials containing chromium 
or manganese are stored, used, or handled.''
3. Mixers
    Comment: One commenter urged the Agency to eliminate the 
requirement that affected facilities cover the mixer where materials 
containing chromium compounds or manganese compounds are added at all 
times when mixing is occurring, except when the materials are being 
added to the mixer. The commenter suggested that this requirement 
implies that chromium compounds or manganese compounds are being 
emitted into the atmosphere directly from the mixer when mixing occurs, 
and they do not believe that this is true. The commenter stated that if 
chromium and manganese are released from a mixer, they are captured 
within the facility in which the mixer is operating and not directly 
released to the atmosphere. The commenter explained that the facilities 
themselves are control devices. The commenter claimed that there was a 
lack of sufficient and compelling data to support a contention that 
openings in mixers are a source of emissions of chromium compounds or 
manganese compounds. The commenter believed that the technical 
background information considered by EPA in this rulemaking produced an 
unfounded correlation between mixer operation and chromium and 
manganese emissions. The commenter cited EPA's 2002 National Emissions 
Inventory (NEI) and noted that the data reviewed indicated no emissions 
of chromium compounds or manganese compounds from source classification 
codes 31227 through 31237, which encompass mixing/blending operations 
at feed manufacturers.
    Response: The commenter stated that when chromium compounds or 
manganese compounds are released from the mixer they are not emitted to 
the atmosphere because the facilities themselves are control devices. 
We do not disagree that there may be situations where direct releases 
to the atmosphere from the mixing operations do not occur. In fact, of 
the facilities that reported information for mixing in response to our 
industry survey, over 60 percent indicated that their processes are 
``closed'' without direct vents to the atmosphere. However, the general 
ventilation of the building can allow chromium- and manganese-
containing dust from the building to be emitted. Chromium and manganese 
dust created in the mixer that accumulates in the building could be 
emitted. Therefore, any measures to reduce the amount of dust in the 
building impacts emissions. We believe that the proposed measures to 
reduce dust generation from mixing will result in lower dust levels 
and, thus, lower emissions.
    The commenter further claimed that there was no evidence that 
openings in mixers are a source of emissions of chromium compounds or 
manganese compounds, and that the technical background information 
considered by EPA in this rulemaking produced an unfounded correlation 
between mixer operation and chromium and manganese emissions. However, 
we identified mixers as a source of emissions due to information 
submitted directly by the industry. Specifically, prepared feeds 
manufacturing facilities identified mixing as a potential emission 
source and reported associated add-on control devices and management 
practices in response to our industry survey. We reviewed the material 
submitted via this survey and agree that it is accurate and 
representative.
    Since some prepared feeds manufacturing facilities reported that 
emissions from mixing were vented to a control device, we evaluated 
whether add-on controls were GACT for mixing operations. The commenter 
is correct that no emissions were assigned directly to mixing in the 
2002 NEI. However, we would note that over 60 percent of the manganese 
emissions in the 2002 NEI, and 90 percent of the chromium emissions, 
were not assigned to any specific operation, thus raising the 
possibility that some of these emissions are occurring from mixing 
operations.
    In order to evaluate whether it was cost effective to select add-on 
control as GACT, it was necessary to make assumptions based on 
engineering judgment to estimate emissions from mixing. While the 
commenter may disagree with the assumptions that were used to estimate 
these emissions, the result was the rejection of add-on control as GACT 
for mixing.
    To reiterate, the emission estimates that the commenter objects to 
were not a factor in establishing the proposed management practices as 
GACT. That determination was directly based on the information 
submitted in response to the survey.

[[Page 532]]

    In conclusion, the commenter provided no information to suggest 
that the proposed measures were not generally available and commonly 
used by the facilities to reduce chromium- or manganese-containing dust 
from mixing operations at prepared feeds manufacturing facilities. The 
commenter also provided no information challenging our conclusion that 
the costs of the GACT standards in the final rule are reasonable. 
Therefore, no changes were made to the proposed requirements for 
mixing.
4. Pelleting and Pellet Cooling
    Comment: One commenter supported requiring the option to select 
add-on control (cyclones) as GACT for facilities that produce less than 
50 tpd of prepared feeds. The commenter points out that EPA determined 
that approximately 20 percent of existing facilities already had 
cyclones installed, and that the agency estimated that the cost 
effectiveness of requiring the remaining 80 percent to install controls 
would be around $1 million per ton of chromium and manganese compound 
emission reduction, $4,000 per ton of PM emission reduction, and 
$20,000 per ton of PM2.5 reduction, and that the annual cost of 
installing and operating a cyclone at one of these facilities would be 
around $58,000 per year. The commenter recognizes that EPA performed an 
economic impact assessment, which indicated that these annual costs 
could represent over 5 percent of the total annual sales for a small 
facility, and that EPA concluded that ``the adverse economic impacts do 
not justify a determination requiring cyclones for the small prepared 
feeds manufacturing subcategory.'' The commenter states that, although 
this economic impact analysis is more instructive than mere reliance on 
cost effectiveness figures, the 5 percent of total annual sales 
threshold is arbitrary. The commenter states that EPA does not explain 
why the benefits of further reductions in PM, PM2.5, manganese 
compounds and chromium compounds, as well as other metal HAP emissions, 
are not sufficient to justify the costs of the controls. The commenter 
stated their belief that the GACT provision's requirement of cost 
considerations does not preclude the need to consider the environmental 
benefits of the proposed rule in determining whether those costs are 
justified.
    Response: As noted by the commenter, we performed an economic 
impact assessment that indicated that the annual costs for fabric 
filters for bagging could represent over 5 percent of the total annual 
sales for a facility with less than 5 employees. We strongly disagree 
that a decision to reject controls that would result in costs that 
represent 5 percent of the total annual sales is arbitrary. This 5 
percent value was a direct calculation of the small model plant cyclone 
costs divided by the average shipments per facility for facilities with 
less than 5 employees. While each GACT decision includes a variety of 
factors to take into account, we generally consider costs in excess of 
3 percent of sales to be significant and potentially economically 
damaging. Further, since we believe all of the facilities in the small 
facility subcategory are small businesses, we are even more sensitive 
to potentially detrimental economic impacts. We also disagree that we 
did not consider the environmental benefits. For this option, we 
estimated and considered the emission reductions of chromium, 
manganese, PM, and PM2.5. However, we determined that these emission 
reductions are not justified given the economic impacts. In conclusion, 
we believe our decision to reject the option to require add-on controls 
for pelleting operations at prepared feed manufacturers with daily 
production rates of 50 tpd or less is justified.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that, since the 50 tpd 
production level determines if emissions must be controlled from the 
pelleting and pellet cooling operations, this level should be related 
to the amount of feed pelletized and not the total amount of feed 
produced by the entire facility. One of the commenters indicated that 
they are aware of several prepared feeds manufacturing facilities that 
do not pelletize feed, or that only pelletize a small percentage of the 
feed produced.
    Response: Under section 112(d)(1) of the CAA, EPA ``may distinguish 
among classes, types, and sizes within a source category or subcategory 
in establishing such standards''. As discussed at proposal (74 FR 
36985), we observed differences between prepared feeds manufacturing 
facilities based on production levels and subcategorized the Prepared 
Feeds Manufacturing source category into ``small'' and ``large'' 
facilities. The threshold used to distinguish between these 
subcategories was an average feed production level of 50 tpd. We then 
independently determined GACT standards for each subcategory. 
Therefore, our subcategorization and GACT determinations were based on 
the separation of facilities according to total feed production levels, 
not pelleting feed production. Since the change suggested by the 
commenter is inconsistent with our subcategorization decision and 
analyses, we retained the proposed definition of the small and large 
subcategories based on total feed production levels.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the 50 tpy threshold be on 
an annual, rather than daily, basis. The commenter said that this could 
be the production level in a calendar year or a rolling 12-month 
production level. The commenter points out that an annual production 
level of 13,000 tons per year would be equivalent to 50 tpd, assuming 
an operating schedule of 260 days per year. The commenter noted that 
the proposed daily rate did not appear to have any special 
significance, as it was calculated as an average of annual production. 
The commenter believed that an annual production rate would achieve the 
same objectives and would be easier than a daily production rate for 
facilities and for regulatory agencies to track.
    Response: We did not incorporate the commenters' suggestion to 
change the threshold to an annual basis. In our determination of GACT, 
the data on the existence of controls were related to daily production 
levels. To determine an annual threshold from these data would require 
an assumption regarding the number of days of operation per year. We do 
not believe that calculating an annual rate based on a ``typical'' 
production schedule is reflective of varying production schedules that 
exist in the industry. Therefore, the final rule maintains the daily 
production level concept. Requiring owners and operators to maintain 
annual production data and the number of operating days, and then 
dividing the annual production by the number of operating days is no 
more difficult or burdensome for facilities or regulatory agencies than 
the approach recommended by the commenter.
    Comment: Two commenters maintained that the pelleting cyclones 
would not be able to reach the proposed design efficiency of 95 percent 
for PM10. The commenters believed that this level of efficiency would 
not be attainable under the conditions of the pelleting process. One 
commenter suggested the efficiency requirement be changed to 95 percent 
for total PM (up to 35 micron). The commenter included a chart from a 
cyclone manufacturer that showed the efficiency in removal of PM10 by a 
cyclone estimated at 90 percent. The commenter continued that this 
level would not be expected to be reached under the conditions of the 
pelleting process with its high moisture and high temperature 
conditions. The commenter stated that a second control

[[Page 533]]

device such as a baghouse or a wet scrubber would be necessary to reach 
a capture efficiency of 95 percent for PM10.
    Response: In the proposed rule, GACT for the pelleting operation 
was determined to be the use of a cyclone to control emissions of 
chromium and manganese. We did not specify GACT as a specific control 
efficiency, concentration, or operating parameter. However, in order to 
establish criteria that represent a properly designed, operated, and 
maintained control device, it was necessary to establish requirements 
in the proposed rule on how the cyclone is designed and operated. Many 
respondents to the industry survey stated they use high efficiency 
cyclones to control the pelleting operations. The result is reduced 
emissions to the air and the capture of lost product that can be 
returned to the manufacturing operation.
    As a follow up to the industry survey responses, we contacted an 
industry representative (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080-0010) that 
responded to our survey for several prepared feeds manufacturing 
facilities and asked about the level of efficiency that would be 
expected with high efficiency cyclones reported to be used to control 
the pelleting process. The representatives indicated that today's high 
efficiency cyclones can be expected to get 99 percent control of 
particulates, while older ones can be expected to achieve efficiencies 
in the ``mid 90 percent'' range. While background material gathered 
prior to proposal from vendors (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080-0034) 
show that high efficiency cyclones should be able to reach the proposed 
95 percent efficiency level for PM10, we understand that the conditions 
of the pelleting process are not optimum. We contacted additional 
cyclone manufacturers after proposal, and some agreed with the 
commenters that cyclones designed to achieve 95 percent efficiency 
level for PM10 for pelleting operations are not available. All of those 
contacted indicated that many older cyclones still being used in the 
industry would not meet the proposed 95 percent PM10 design 
requirement. It was not our intent to force prepared feeds 
manufacturers to replace older, well designed and properly operating 
cyclones with new high efficiency cyclones, particularly since the 
incremental emission reduction would be very low and the costs would be 
high (our estimates are that the capital cost of a new cyclone is 
between $50,000 to $100,000). The available information suggests that a 
95 percent efficiency design requirement is achievable for total PM. 
Therefore, we have changed the criterion in the final rule to require 
cyclones designed to achieve a 95 percent efficiency level for total 
PM, rather than for PM10.
    Comment: A commenter recommended that the final rule provide 
explicit compliance alternatives to the requirement to operate a 95 
percent control efficient cyclone. The commenter cites that other area 
source NESHAP, such as the Nonferrous Foundry NESHAP (Subpart ZZZZZZ), 
establish a limit of either 99.0 percent control for PM or an emission 
limit of 0.01 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf). The 
commenter is concerned that having 95 percent control efficient cyclone 
as the only compliance option for pelletizing operations would unfairly 
penalize a facility that has a pelletizing process with low 
uncontrolled emissions or a facility that uses other control equipment 
to achieve emissions reductions.
    Response: The proposed rule required that emissions from pelleting 
operations be captured and routed to a cyclone designed to reduce PM10 
emissions by 95 percent. The format of the rule is an equipment 
standard, and the 95 percent criterion is a design value, not an 
emission limitation. Therefore, there is no penalty for a facility with 
low uncontrolled emissions, provided that they have a cyclone designed 
to achieve 95 percent reduction that is operated and maintained 
properly.
    Comment: A commenter requested clarification of whether PM or PM10 
emissions is considered a surrogate for HAP emission in the proposed 
rule. The commenter notes that the proposed rule requires that 
pelletizing operations at feed preparation facilities with daily 
production levels greater than 50 tpd be controlled by a cyclone 
designed to reduce PM10 emissions by 95 percent or greater, and that in 
several places in the preamble to the proposed rule that EPA indicates 
that PM emissions will be considered the surrogate for chromium and 
manganese. The commenter asked whether PM or PM10 is the surrogate 
pollutant for the proposed rule. The commenter points out that several 
other area source NESHAP consider PM to be the surrogate pollutant for 
HAP emissions such as Subpart ZZZZZZ (Aluminum, Copper, Nonferrous 
Foundries) and Subpart ZZZZZ (Iron and Steel Foundries). The commenter 
recommends that EPA clarify in the final rule whether the surrogate 
pollutant is PM or PM10 and include a justification for the choice of 
surrogate. Further, the commenter recommends that, if EPA elects to use 
PM10 as the surrogate, EPA evaluate the required control efficiency for 
the cyclone control equipment.
    Response: As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, PM is the 
surrogate for chromium and manganese emitted from this source category. 
However, when specifying compliance conditions, the proposed rule used 
the measure of collection efficiency of PM10. Due to other comments 
received (see above), the final rule uses PM as the metric for cyclone 
collection efficiency rather than PM10, which should remove any 
confusion about the surrogate.
    Comment: A commenter notes that the proposed rule requires the 
owner of a cyclone at a feed preparation facility with a daily 
production level of greater than 50 tpd to keep a record from the 
cyclone's manufacturer of the control efficiency. The commenter asks 
what EPA's expectations are for facilities if the manufacturer's 
specifications are not available or do not show compliance with the 
control efficiency? The commenter also asked whether an owner or 
operator would have the option of demonstrating compliance with the 
rule by testing the inlet/outlet concentrations of the cyclone for 
determining the control efficiency. Finally, the commenter asked 
whether other particulate control devices, such as a baghouse or fabric 
filter, or control equipment in series, such as a cyclone and a 
baghouse, would be allowed? The commenter indicated that if these 
options are allowed that this should be made clear in the final rule.
    Response: The commenter asked what EPA's expectations are for 
facilities in showing compliance with the rule if the cyclone 
manufacturer's design control efficiency and operating and maintenance 
procedures are not available. We acknowledge that this could be a 
problem, and have included in the final rule options for documenting 
that the cyclone is designed to achieve 95 percent PM reduction. The 
first option is to obtain certification from the manufacturer, as 
proposed. Under Option 2, the owner or operator could have a registered 
professional engineer or responsible official certify that the cyclone 
is designed in a manner capable of achieving 95 percent or greater PM 
reduction and keep a record of the information used to make this 
determination. The third option is to conduct PM testing at the inlet 
and outlet of the cyclone(s) to demonstrate that an efficiency of 95 
percent or greater PM reduction is actually being achieved. If either 
the certification or testing option is used, the owner or operator 
would be required to identify

[[Page 534]]

a parameter (inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan 
amperage) operating range that constitutes proper operation of the 
device, and develop site-specific cyclone maintenance procedures.
5. Bulk Loading
    Comment: Several commenters objected to the proposed requirement 
that emissions from bulk loading be reduced through the use of drop 
filter socks. Two of the commenters believe that this is too costly and 
should not be considered as GACT. One of the commenters explained that, 
in order to meet the proposed requirements, one of their facilities 
would need to redesign and purchase equipment for the entire bin and 
bin loading system and potentially redesign the entire mill, which 
could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Two commenters disagreed 
with EPA's claim that every facility uses drop filter socks to reduce 
dust and the loss of product during the loading of railcars and trucks. 
One of the commenters argued that EPA's conclusion that every affected 
facility already uses drop filter socks to reduce dust and the loss of 
product during the loading of railcars and trucks contradicts the 
background technical information in the docket, which indicates that 
the use of drop filter socks was reported for around 70 percent of the 
plants. The commenter noted that they conducted a survey of 41 prepared 
feed manufacturing companies representing 306 plants to identify how 
many facilities currently use drop filter socks. The commenter's survey 
results were as follows:
    1. The average number of loading-discharge points is 14.3 per 
facility.
    2. Only 53 percent of the responding industry facilities currently 
have drop filter socks installed at discharge points where prepared 
feed products are loaded into trucks or railcars.
    3. The estimated average cost to install each drop filter sock is 
$295.
    4. The estimated average annual cost to maintain each drop filter 
sock is $215.

The commenter indicated that, based on their survey results and the 
assumption that there would be approximately 6,300 affected facilities, 
the cost to install drop filter socks at loading discharge points would 
be $12.5 million for the entire industry, with an annual cost of $9.1 
million per year. The commenter notes the stark contrast in these 
estimates and EPA's claim that the proposed requirement to install drop 
filter socks would not create additional associated costs for 
facilities.
    Three of the commenters point out other alternative methods that 
are equally effective in reducing emissions and should be allowed. One 
commenter explained that many facilities have discharge-loading points 
that already are designed to limit the distance between the feed-
discharge point and the conveyance, thereby minimizing potential dust 
emissions. All three of these commenters note that many load-out 
operations are conducted in enclosed areas, which minimizes emissions 
and eliminates the need for drop filter socks. One of the commenters 
asked that, if the requirements did not apply to truck load-outs that 
occur inside a building, EPA should clarify this in the final rule.
    Response: At proposal, we determined that filter drop socks (or 
drop filter socks, as we inadvertently used the terms interchangeably) 
represented GACT for bulk loading. As evident in the definition of 
``filter drop sock,'' we intended that this term represent any ``device 
at the loadout end of a bulk loader that lessens fugitive emissions by 
containing the unloaded product within the device thus preventing 
windblown and drop caused fugitive emissions.'' We are confident in our 
assumption that every prepared feeds manufacturing facility uses some 
device that meets the proposed broad definition of filter drop sock. 
However, these comments make it apparent that the industry recognizes 
one specific technology as filter drop socks, or drop socks, and that 
it would not be accurate to assume that every facility utilizes this 
technology. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, we have removed the 
definition of filter drop sock and revised the standard to require 
that, for the bulk loading process where prepared feeds products 
containing chromium or manganese are loaded into trucks or railcars, a 
device must be used at the loadout end of each bulk loader to lessen 
fugitive emissions. Examples of these devices include drop socks, 
flexible spouts, and any device that reduces the distance between the 
loading arm and the truck or railcar to a degree that avoids dust. We 
believe it is important that these technologies be used for all bulk 
loaders, whether they are inside or outside. Therefore, this 
requirement applies to all bulk loaders that load products containing 
chromium or manganese.
6. Bagging
    Comment: One commenter disagreed with the decision to reject add-on 
controls for emissions from bagging operations based solely on the cost 
effectiveness of installing and operating those controls. The commenter 
explained that the Agency's decision was made despite the widespread 
use of these controls, as around 30 percent of the smaller facilities 
and over 90 percent of the larger facilities controlled emissions from 
bagging. The commenter points out that EPA did not disagree or reject 
the notion that control options are appropriate or that the economic 
impacts are too great. Rather, the commenter points out that the 
decision to reject the option was based solely on the cost-
effectiveness, and that no economic analysis was performed. The 
commenter indicated that basing this GACT decision solely on cost 
effectiveness was unlawful. The commenter stated that the Agency is not 
directed, under Section 112(d)(5), to set standards based on what the 
agency believes is cost effective. The commenter noted that the Agency 
themselves stated, ``GACT must reflect the `methods, practices and 
techniques which are commercially available and appropriate for 
application by the sources in the category considering economic 
impacts.' 74 FR 36982 (quoting S. REP. NO. 101-228, at 171-72).''
    Response: We disagree with the commenter, as we believe that cost 
effectiveness is an appropriate measure to consider in the evaluation 
of GACT, and that considering cost effectiveness is not unlawful. We 
believe that by rejecting add-on controls for bagging operations 
because the cost effectiveness was ``too high to be considered GACT,'' 
clearly indicates that we concluded the economic impacts are too great. 
In the preamble to the proposed rule (74 FR 36986), we presented the 
estimates for both sizes of facilities. For the facilities with daily 
production levels of 50 tpd or less, the estimates were over $7 million 
for the total capital costs and over $16 million per year for the total 
annual costs, resulting in cost effectiveness estimates for these 
controls of around $255 million per ton of chromium and manganese 
reduction, over $750,000 per ton of PM emission reduction, and $3.3 
million per ton of PM2.5 reduction. For the facilities with daily 
production levels greater than 50 tpd, the estimates were over $10 
million for the total capital costs and over $13 million per year for 
the total annual costs, resulting in cost effectiveness estimates of 
around $37 million per ton of chromium and manganese reduction, over 
$100,000 per ton of PM emission reduction, and around $500,000 per ton 
of PM2.5 reduction. Therefore, no changes were made as a result of this 
comment.

[[Page 535]]

D. Inspections and Compliance Provisions

    Comment: Two commenters stated that monitoring pressure drop would 
not be the best way to ensure the proper functioning of the pelleting 
cyclones. The commenters noted that, due to high moisture conditions 
(always near dew point) of the dust laden air passing through the 
cyclones on the pellet cooler air system, accurately measuring the 
pressure drop is problematic. The commenters stated that moisture and 
particulates in the duct (especially those ``upstream'' of the 
collectors) will constantly compromise the accuracy of the static 
pressure indicating equipment. Secondly, the commenters state that the 
collectors are quite inaccessible and would require remote readouts, 
which add to the cost and maintenance of this equipment. One commenter 
believed the best way to ensure the proper functioning of their 
collectors is to simply monitor the amp-load of the fan. The commenter 
states that if the amp-load on the fan motor stays within the proper 
range then the system is functioning properly. The commenter also 
stated that, in their operation, the cyclones are located between the 
cooler and the fan and the duct work is fully contained and sealed. 
According to the commenter, consequently, all the air that is 
discharged from the fan has passed through the collectors. The 
commenter stated that, additionally, the fans on their cooler air 
systems are electrically interlocked with the pelleting system (i.e., 
the pellet mill feeder will not operate unless the fan is operating); 
consequently, if the pelleting system is operating, the fan will be 
operating and the continuous monitoring of the fan amps will ensure the 
collectors are operating in the proper range.
    One of these commenters believed that the cost to industry to 
install pressure-drop gauges and to monitor cyclone pressure drop would 
be extremely high. According to the commenter, given the limited time 
provided by EPA to respond to this proposed requirement, they were 
unable to receive actual price quotes from vendors on the cost to 
install a pressure-drop gauge on a cyclone at various types of 
facilities. The commenter anticipated that such prices could vary 
depending upon a facility's equipment and physical layout. However, 
according to the commenter, based upon best estimates from vendors, 
they believed that an average conservative cost to install a pressure-
drop gauge is $1,500 to $2,000 per cyclone. This commenter suggested 
that the rule be revised to include alternative management practices 
and equipment controls as follows:
    1. Pellet cooling cyclones are to be operated in accordance with 
the parameters authorized by air-operating permits issued by 
appropriate legal authorities.
    2. Pellet cooling cyclones are to be maintained and operated in 
accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
    3. Once per day, affected facilities are to perform a visual 
inspection of the operating cyclone and the discharge air stream to 
observe emissions.
    4. Should an affected facility observe an emission discharge that 
is not in accordance with the parameters authorized within its air-
operating permit, corrective actions are to be taken immediately to 
correct the discharge and bring it into compliance with its air-
operating permit. The details of such occurrences, if any, are to be 
recorded in the facility's maintenance records as required by rule's 
recordkeeping and notification requirements.
    Response: We believe that it is necessary to have a reasonably 
frequent indication that the cyclones are operating properly. Cyclones 
are relatively simple devices and generally have no moving parts. A 
cyclone uses an induced draft fan to move the gas stream through the 
device. These fans are sized to provide the maximum inlet velocity 
possible for high separation without excessive turbulence. The primary 
indicators of the performance of cyclones are the outlet opacity and 
inlet velocity.
    The commenter suggested the use of outlet opacity to monitor 
performance; however, monitoring outlet opacity would require that 
trained off-site contractors be used, or more likely, that individuals 
at the plant be trained and certified in determining opacity using 
Method 9. We have estimated that a single Method 9 test by an off-site 
contractor costs around $2,000. While the costs to train and certify 
on-site employees to perform these required daily tests would result in 
costs less than $2,000 per day, we still believe that the cost of using 
outlet opacity as an indicator of performance would be too high. 
Therefore, we elected to require monitoring which provides an 
indication of inlet velocity. Pressure drop across the cyclone is a 
surrogate for inlet velocity, and, contrary to the commenters' claims, 
it is an appropriate measure to indicate proper operation of a cyclone. 
Many cyclone manufacturers link the design efficiency with a specific 
pressure drop. However, other parameters are appropriate surrogates for 
the inlet velocity. In particular, monitoring either inlet flow rate, 
inlet velocity, or fan amperage are acceptable alternatives to 
monitoring pressure drop. As a result of these comments, we have added 
alternatives to the final rule that allow an owner or operator to 
monitor pressure drop on a daily basis, or monitor either the inlet 
flow rate, inlet velocity, or amperage load to the fan, on a daily 
basis to show that the cyclone is performing consistent with its design 
specifications. The commenter did not provide any information to 
support their estimated costs of monitoring equipment.
    One of the commenters suggested that cyclones be operated in 
accordance with parameters authorized by operating permits issued by 
appropriate legal authorities. We disagree with the commenter's 
suggested approach. As an initial matter, section 112(d)(5) requires 
that the Administrator establish national emission standards. To assure 
compliance with these national emission standards, EPA develops 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, as it did in this 
rule. Indeed, one of the reasons supporting EPA's exemption of the 
prepared feed manufacturing area source category from the requirements 
of title V is that this rule contains sufficient monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements to assure compliance with the 
requirements of the final rule. Thus, section 112 contemplates not only 
that EPA will establish national emission standards, but that EPA will 
establish appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements to assure compliance with those requirements. Furthermore, 
the monitoring and other compliance provisions in State permits can 
vary considerably, and some prepared feeds manufacturing facilities may 
not even have permits. If a source would like to use an alternative 
monitoring approach allowed by a state permit, it should follow the 
requirements of 40 CFR 63.8(f). Therefore, we reject the commenter's 
suggestion to remove any specific monitoring requirements from the 
rule.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed concern over the frequency of 
record keeping for the pelleting control devices. One of these 
commenters suggested that weekly, rather than daily, pressure drop 
readings would be adequate. This commenter stated that, while a monthly 
maintenance check on the cyclone is a reasonable requirement, daily 
pressure drop readings are excessive because the pressure drop readings 
would not be expected to vary widely. The commenter also noted that

[[Page 536]]

many cyclones are installed in areas that are not easily accessible so 
daily checks can be time consuming to collect data that they describe 
as a ``maintenance indicator.'' The other commenter stated that weekly 
recording of readings would be adequate and that daily recordkeeping 
was ``overkill'' (although the commenter provided justification for 
reduced recordkeeping specific to a baghouse rather than the proposed 
requirement for a cyclone).
    Response: We proposed using the maintenance indicator of pressure 
drop in order to ensure that the cyclones are operating correctly as an 
indicator of compliance with the rule that can be readily checked by an 
inspector. As discussed above, the final rule includes the option to 
daily monitor inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan 
amperage. By providing multiple options to indicate compliance, we 
believe the facility will find an option that can be completed from an 
accessible area. Daily readings of these parameters are considered 
appropriate because, while a cyclone may be a rather simple control 
device in terms of moving parts, the system of ductwork and fans impact 
the efficiency of the unit. Each cyclone is designed for a specific 
inlet velocity in order to maximize the collection efficiency. We 
believe that daily checks are necessary to ensure the ductwork is not 
entraining outside air and/or that the fan is operating in the designed 
manner. As a result, we have not changed the requirement for daily 
monitoring and recording of cyclone performance measures.
    Comment: A commenter also asked that the rule specify which cyclone 
is expected to have a pressure drop gauge installed in cases where 
multiple cyclones are installed in a line. Specifically, would pressure 
drop monitoring be required for the initial cyclone, subsequent 
cyclones, or all cyclones?
    Response: The answer is dependent on the design reduction 
efficiency of the cyclones. If one cyclone in a series is designed to 
achieve 95 percent or greater PM removal, then monitoring would only be 
necessary for that one device. However, if the design efficiencies for 
all the individual cyclones in the series are less than 95 percent, but 
the combined design efficiency is 95 percent or greater, then the inlet 
flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage for all the 
cyclones would need to be monitored.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Agency consider 
revising the proposed monitoring to specify that the pressure drop must 
be monitored at least once per day when the cyclone is in operation.
    Response: We agree with the concept of this comment. However, we 
want to make clear that the cyclone is required to be used at all times 
when the pelleting process is in operation. Therefore, the rule has 
been revised to state that monitoring of the cyclone operating 
parameters is required at least once per day when the pelleting process 
is in operation.

E. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    Comment: One commenter stated that Sec.  63.11619(e)(1) of the 
proposed rule indicated that facilities that do not add any materials 
containing chromium or manganese compounds are not subject to the rule. 
The commenter interpreted this to mean that facilities that do not use 
chromium- or manganese-containing materials would be excluded from all 
aspects of the NESHAP, including the requirement to submit an Initial 
Notification. However, the commenter noted that, during the August 4, 
2009 webinar (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080-44), it was 
suggested that these facilities would be required to submit an initial 
notification. The commenter indicated that it seems unnecessary to 
require submittal of initial notification from facilities that do not 
use chromium or manganese compounds, and requested that EPA clarify 
whether this report is required of these facilities.
    Response: The commenter's interpretation is correct. Facilities 
that do not add any materials containing chromium or manganese to any 
product manufactured at the facility are not subject to the rule, 
including the requirement to submit an initial notification.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the proposed requirement to 
submit an annual compliance certification report be omitted from the 
final rule. The commenter said that annual reporting is burdensome and 
difficult for small businesses to do year after year. The commenter 
believes that annual reporting creates excessive paperwork for the 
facility and the delegated authority with little environmental benefit. 
The commenter also recommended that the monthly record certifying that 
a facility has complied with the dust minimization management practices 
be omitted, as they believe it is very excessive.
    Response: Provided that the facility is in compliance, this annual 
compliance certification report only needs to indicate that compliance 
has been achieved. In the event that a noncompliance event has 
occurred, this report will need to provide information about this 
event. We believe it is important that there is clear accountability 
regarding compliance with the regulation, and we believe that this is 
best accomplished by having a responsible official certify that the 
facility has complied with the requirements in the rule. We disagree 
with the commenter that this once per year report is difficult and 
overly burdensome. Therefore, the final rule has retained the 
requirement to submit annual certification reports.
    However, we considered the commenter's request regarding the 
monthly certifications and have determined that they are not necessary. 
We believe that accountability can be maintained via the annual 
certifications and required records. Therefore, the proposed 
requirement to keep a monthly record certifying compliance with the 
management practices was not maintained in the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter pointed out that the proposed rule did not 
require a facility to keep records to show that it was below or above 
the 50 tpd production level that determines whether controls are 
required for emissions from the pelleting and pellet cooling operation. 
The commenter also noted that the rule did not explain what happens 
when a facility with a daily production level less than 50 tpd 
increases production such that they would have a daily production level 
greater than 50 tpd. The commenter recommended that provisions be added 
to eliminate these deficiencies.
    Response: We agree with the commenter, and added recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements related to the average daily feed production 
level. We also clarified how this level is to be determined. The final 
rule specifies that the initial determination of the average daily feed 
production level is based on the one-year period prior to the 
compliance date for existing sources, or the design rate for new 
sources. The final rule also requires that facilities with average 
daily feed production levels below 50 tpd report their initial average 
daily feed production level in their Notification of Compliance Status 
report. These facilities would be required to maintain average daily 
feed production level records to demonstrate that they do not exceed 
the 50 tpd threshold in the future. At the end of each calendar year, 
the facility will be required to re-calculate the average daily feed 
production level for the previous year. If the average daily feed

[[Page 537]]

production level exceeds 50 tpd, the facility would have to comply with 
the requirement to collect emissions from the pelleting and pellet 
cooling operations and route them to a cyclone by July 1 of that year.
    Prepared feed mill owners or operators with average daily feed 
production levels less than 50 tpd that elect to comply with the 
requirement to collect emissions from the pelleting and pellet cooling 
operations and route the emissions to a cyclone would not be required 
to maintain production records.

F. Definitions

    Comment: Three commenters suggested that the EPA establish 
definitions for chromium compounds and manganese compounds. One of the 
commenters suggested using criteria consistent with that found within 
the Agency's TRI reporting requirements, and noted that these 
regulations state that: (1) Chromium compounds and manganese compounds 
are exempt from the TRI reporting requirements when the concentration 
of such chemicals is less than 1 percent of the total compound; and (2) 
such an exemption applies whether the facility received or produced the 
compound. One of the other commenters pointed out that, in other area 
source NESHAP, materials containing HAP are defined as materials that 
contain chromium in amounts greater than 0.1 percent by weight or 
manganese in amounts greater than 1.0 percent by weight. The commenter 
cited the definition of ``Material containing MFHAP'' in Sec.  63.1522 
(40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX) as an example.
    Response: The commenters are confusing two concepts. A ``chemical 
compound'' is a basic chemistry term to indicate a substance composed 
of two or more elements united chemically in definite proportions by 
mass. Therefore, any chemical compound containing the element chromium 
would be a ``chromium compound.'' For example, chromic oxide, chromium 
trioxide, and potassium chromate are all chromium compounds. Similarly, 
any compound containing the element manganese is a ``manganese 
compound.'' Manganese dioxide and manganese chloride are examples of 
manganese compounds. In the CAA, ``chromium compounds'' and ``manganese 
compounds'' two of the 30 Urban HAP. See Integrated Air Toxics 
Strategy; see also CAA 112(b). Therefore, any chemical compound that 
contains chromium or manganese is considered a HAP. We do not believe 
that it is necessary to add language in the rule to explain this 
standard chemistry terminology.
    However, we agree with the commenter that the addition of 
definitions of ``a material containing chromium'' and ``a material 
containing manganese'' are appropriate. As we have pointed out in 
several other area source rulemakings, the CAA section 112(k) inventory 
was primarily based on the 1990 TRI, and that is the case for the 
Prepared Feeds Manufacturing source category as well. The reporting 
requirements for the TRI do not include de minimis concentrations of 
toxic chemicals in mixtures; therefore, the CAA section 112(k) 
inventory would not have included emissions from operations involving 
chemicals below these concentration levels. See 40 CFR 372.38, Toxic 
Chemical Release Reporting: Community Right-To-Know (Reporting 
Requirements). Accordingly, the percentages noted above define the 
scope of the listed source category; they are not exemptions.
    Therefore, we believe that it is also appropriate to incorporate 
this into the prepared feeds manufacturing area source NESHAP. 
Specifically, we have added the following definitions to the final 
rule:
    A material containing chromium means a material that contains 
chromium (Cr, atomic number 24) in amounts greater than or equal to 0.1 
percent by weight.
    A material containing manganese means a material that contains 
manganese (Mn, atomic number 25) in amounts greater than or equal to 
1.0 percent by weight.
    We also revised the applicability provisions in Sec.  63.11619(a) 
to specify that the rule applies to prepared feeds manufacturing 
facilities that use a material containing chromium or a material 
containing manganese and is an area source of emissions of HAP.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the EPA add the following 
definition for prepared animal feeds: ``a mixture of ingredients and 
supplements fortified with essential minerals, intended to be fed 
directly to animals to meet or exceed total daily nutrient 
requirements.'' The commenter also suggested that the definition of 
prepared feeds manufacturing facility be changed to specify that the 
feeds produced must be ``fortified with essential minerals.''
    Response: As discussed earlier in section B, the prepared feeds 
area source category extends beyond those facilities manufacturing only 
products intended to be fed directly to animals. Additionally, this 
definition is not consistent with the NAICS code that forms the basis 
for this source category. Therefore, we did not incorporate the changes 
suggested by the commenter.
    Comment: One commenter requested that drop filter sock should be 
defined and that it needs to specify the materials of construction and 
how far into the railcar or truck it needs to extend. Another commenter 
recommended that the Agency amend the term ``drop filter sock'' to 
``drop sock, since the device does not filter potential emissions in 
any manner.''
    Response: As discussed in section V.C.5, we have eliminated the use 
of the term ``filter drop sock'' in the final rule. Therefore, this 
definition has been removed.

G. Impacts Assessment

    Comment: One commenter believes that EPA's estimated number of 
prepared feeds manufacturers affected by the proposed rule is 
inaccurately low. The commenter points out that EPA states that 
approximately 1,800 area-source prepared feed manufacturing facilities 
currently operating add chromium compounds or manganese compounds to 
their products and therefore would be subject to the proposed area 
source standards. In contrast, the commenter believes that the actual 
number of affected facilities exceeds 6,300. The commenter notes that 
the FDA's bovine spongiform encephalopathy inspection database 
currently lists more than 6,300 feed mills in which FDA has conducted 
inspections. The commenter points out that the actual number of 
facilities subject to the proposed rule has a direct impact on the 
agency's stated benefits and costs of the rule.
    Response: We agree that the number of facilities subject to the 
rule is a key component in the assessment of impacts. Ideally, we would 
not only have an estimate of the number of facilities in a source 
category for which we are developing regulations, but we would also 
have a list of those facilities. During our information gathering 
efforts, it was clear that the industry was not well represented in the 
two national emissions databases (TRI and NEI) that we typically use to 
characterize an industry and their emissions. We also did not identify 
any other source of information that would provide a list of specific 
prepared feed manufacturing facilities in the U.S. Therefore, we based 
our estimate of 1,800 prepared feed manufacturing facilities on the 
2002 U.S. Economic Census of Manufacturers. Prior to proposal, we 
consulted with the commenter on this topic, and the commenter agreed 
that 1,800 was a reasonable estimate. However, we appreciate that the 
commenter has now obtained other information that they believe 
indicates

[[Page 538]]

that the number of facilities may be higher than originally estimated. 
We investigated the FDA inspections database mentioned by the commenter 
and found that this database includes many more types of facilities 
than just prepared feed mills. The FDA Web site says the following: 
``Inspections of renderers, feed mills, ruminant feeders, protein 
blenders, pet feed manufacturers, pet feed salvagers, animal feed 
distributors and transporters, ruminant feeders, and others have been 
conducted to determine compliance with the BSE/Ruminant Feed 
regulations.'' Clearly this includes many types of facilities that are 
not in the Prepared Feeds Manufacturing area source category.
    Facilities in the Prepared Feeds Manufacturing Source Category are 
classified under NAICS 311119, which includes ``establishments 
primarily engaged in manufacturing animal food (except dog and cat) 
from ingredients, such as grains, oilseed mill products, and meat 
products.'' The proposed applicability of the rule was taken directly 
from this NAICS definition, except that it limited applicability to 
those animal feed manufacturers that use chromium or manganese. The 
2002 U.S. Economic Census of Manufacturers reports 1,567 establishments 
under NAICS 311119. The census reports 1,811 establishments under the 
broader NAICS 31111. While NAICS 31111 likely includes establishments 
that would not be included in the source category, we chose to place 
our estimate of the number of prepared feed facilities at 1,800 to be 
conservative. As noted above, we sought input on this estimate and the 
commenter deemed it as a ``reasonable estimate'' (Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0080-0010).
    The commenter did not provide any explanation why the Census data 
were incorrect for these NAICS codes. The commenter also did not 
provide evidence that establishments counted under other NAICS codes 
would be subject to the rule. As discussed in section V.B, we revised 
the applicability provisions to ensure that it is clear that the rule 
only applies to the types of facilities that formed the basis for the 
source category listing. Since this listing was based on NAICS 311119, 
and no evidence has been submitted that the Census information for 
NAICS is incorrect, we did not change our estimate of the population of 
prepared feed manufacturing facilities in the U.S.
    Comment: One commenter pointed out that data reported within the 
TRI, which were used as a basis for EPA's baseline emission estimates, 
are not solely an indication of emissions to the atmosphere. The 
commenter stated that, by definition, the reported release may result 
from spilling, leaking, pouring, emptying, discharging, injecting, 
escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing of the reported chemical into 
the environment.
    Response: The commenter is correct that a variety of types of 
releases are reported in the TRI. However, for our analysis, we only 
used releases reported as ``Fugitive Air Emissions'' and ``Point Source 
Air Emissions.'' Therefore, we disagree with the comment, as these 
releases clearly represent an indication of emissions to the 
atmosphere.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concerns about the methodology 
used to estimate emission levels of chromium compounds, manganese 
compounds, and total PM. The commenter stated their belief that this 
analysis lacked a sound statistical basis, and that the baseline 
emission estimates and corresponding estimated potential emission 
reductions used by EPA within its proposed rule are erroneous and do 
not support EPA's proposed management practices and equipment controls.
    In particular, the commenter believed that it was inappropriate to 
extrapolate the chromium compound and manganese compound emissions for 
the entire industry based on average emission rates from only 22 
facilities represented in EPA's 2006 TRI. The commenter pointed out 
that this problem was exacerbated by the fact that only a fraction of 
these 22 facilities reported emissions of chromium or manganese 
compounds. Further, the commenter also stated that facilities reporting 
the majority of these emissions produce trace mineral premixes 
subsequently used by other feed manufacturers, and that they do not 
have pelleting operations, which EPA identifies as the largest emission 
source at prepared feed mills.
    With regard to the estimated PM emissions, the commenter indicated 
that they believe that the average PM emission level calculated from 
the NEI was inaccurate. In particular, the commenter believes that the 
70 facilities in the NEI with PM emissions represent a number of the 
highest production volume feed manufacturers in the United States. 
Therefore, the commenter states that using the average PM emissions for 
these larger facilities significantly overestimates the PM emissions 
for the entire industry.
    Response: The information questioned by the commenter was 
considered by EPA in the selection of GACT. As discussed above in 
section V.D, this information did not impact the decision to regulate 
chromium and manganese from the prepared feeds source category or the 
decision which emission sources to regulate. Further, the emission 
reductions estimated by this analysis were only one of the 
considerations that make up the GACT decision.
    With regard to the specific concerns offered by the commenter, the 
technical memorandum describing the estimation of baseline emissions 
discussed the lack of facility-specific emissions data for the prepared 
feeds industry. Given this lack of data, the approach selected was to 
develop ``model plants'' to represent the industry. The use of model 
plants with ``average'' parameters is a sound technical approach that 
EPA has long used when facility-specific information is not available 
for the entire industry. Therefore, we reject the argument by the 
commenter that the use of average emission levels is inappropriate.
    However, we do recognize the concerns of the commenters with regard 
to the specific average emission levels utilized and the manner in 
which they were created. For instance, the average chromium compound 
emission level was based on a single facility's emissions in the 2006 
TRI, and the average manganese compound emissions level was based on 
emissions from eight facilities. The commenter did not provide any 
suggestions on how to improve the analysis using the existing or other 
readily available information. However, in light of the concerns, we 
reexamined the available data and the approaches used.
    After this review, relatively significant changes were made to five 
specific areas of our impacts analysis. Each of these is discussed 
below. There is a technical memorandum in the docket that discusses 
these changes further and presents the detailed updated results.
1. Changes to Analyses
    Percentage of Industry in Small Facility Subcategory. The proposal 
analysis estimated the number of prepared feed manufacturing facilities 
with average daily feed production values of 50 tpd or less based on 
information submitted by the industry in response to an EPA 
questionnaire. Around 11 percent of the facilities responding to this 
questionnaire had daily production levels of 50 tpd or less. Following 
the completion of the baseline emissions and impacts analyses, EPA 
conducted an economic impact analysis. As part of this analysis, EPA 
collected detailed data from the 2002 Economic Census of Manufacturers 
that broke down the

[[Page 539]]

industry based on the number of employees. This information suggested 
that the profile of the industry based on the industry questionnaire 
responses may have been biased slightly toward larger facilities (i.e., 
a larger percentage of the industry would have average daily feed 
production rates of 50 tpd or less than originally estimated). 
Therefore, this new information was used, along with correlation 
between production and revenues provided by a commenter, to reassess 
this profile. The revised analyses assume that 29 percent of the 
facilities in the industry have average daily feed production levels of 
50 tpd or less.
    Number of Facilities Emitting Chromium. In the proposal analysis, 
it was assumed that every facility in the industry added chromium-
containing nutrients to their products. However, in response to follow-
up questions asked by EPA on their public comments, the industry trade 
organizations stated that: ``The use of chromium compounds among feed 
manufacturers is not as prevalent as the use of manganese compounds. 
Until a recent FDA-approval for use in dairy feeds earlier this year, 
chromium compounds had been approved for use only in swine feeds. Only 
about 2 to 3 percent of feed mills in the U.S. use a chromium compound, 
and only two compounds, chromium proprionate and chromium 
tripicolinate, are approved by FDA for use in swine feed.'' Based on 
this information, the revised impacts analysis assumes that only 3 
percent of the prepared feed manufacturing facilities in the United 
States use and emit chromium.
    Facility Average Chromium and Manganese Emission Rates. Because the 
national databases considered prior to proposal contained data for such 
a limited number of prepared feed manufacturing facilities, a model 
plant approach was used to estimate nationwide emissions and impacts 
for the source category. This model plant approach used facility 
average emission levels from the 2006 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 
for chromium and manganese. The commenter criticized the development of 
average emission rates from such a limited data set. To broaden the 
data set, TRI data were obtained for every facility reporting NAICS 
code 311119 and/or SIC 3048 for the years 1990 through 2007. There were 
over 10,000 facilities reporting these NAICS/SIC codes over these 18 
years, averaging just over 570 facilities per year. On average, there 
were 134 facilities reporting manganese emissions each year and 2 
reporting chromium. These data were used to calculate new facility 
average manganese and chromium emission rates, which were used in the 
revised analyses.
    Production Level To Calculate PM Emission Factor. In the proposal 
analyses, the facility average PM emission rate from the 2002 NEI for 
emission sources after the point in the process when chromium or 
manganese would be added was divided by the average production rate 
from the facilities that responded to the EPA questionnaire to obtain 
an emission factor in units of tons per year PM emissions per tpd 
production level. The commenter indicated that this average production 
level used, 177 tpd, was not representative of the facilities in the 
NEI. They ``conservatively estimated that the average production that 
occurred at those facilities listed in the 2002 NEI exceeded 500 tpd.'' 
In the revised analysis, the PM emissions factor was calculated based 
on the production level of 500 tpd provided by the commenter.
    Cyclone Efficiency for PM2.5. The impacts analysis for the proposed 
rule assumed that cyclones would achieve a 95 percent reduction 
efficiency for PM2.5. An efficiency chart provided by a 
commenter shows cyclone efficiencies of approximately 30 percent for 
PM2.5. This value was used in the revised analysis.
2. Summary of Revised Results
    The results of the revised impacts analysis showed a decrease in 
the PM emissions and increases in the manganese, chromium, and 
PM2.5 emissions. The revised emissions levels prior to the 
implementation of this regulation are 8.2 tons per year of chromium, 
195 tons per year of manganese, around 11,000 tons per year of both PM 
and PM2.5.
    The revised analysis also shows higher levels of chromium and 
manganese emission reductions and lower levels of both PM and 
PM2.5 reductions. Since the costs were not impacted by the 
changes to the analyses, the cost effectiveness of the controls were 
lower for the chromium and manganese and higher for the PM and 
PM2.5. Cost effectiveness values are discussed further in 
the revised impacts memo which is in the docket. Based on the comments, 
we did change the impacts, but none of these conclusions affect our 
choice of GACT.

H. Title V Requirements

    Comment: Several commenters agreed with the proposed title V permit 
exemption, noting such factors as the adequacy of existing state 
programs to ensure compliance, the additional economic and other 
burdens imposed by title V permitting, and the lack of technical 
resources to comply with permitting requirements for facilities that 
are mostly small businesses.
    Response: We acknowledge the commenters' support for the exemption 
from title V permitting requirements in this rule.
    Comment: One commenter argued that the agency's proposal to exempt 
the area source category from title V requirements is unlawful and 
arbitrary. The commenter states that section 502(a) of the CAA 
authorizes EPA to exempt area source categories from title V permitting 
requirements if the Administrator finds that compliance with such 
requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible or unnecessarily 
burdensome.'' 42 U.S.C. 7661a(a). The commenter notes that EPA did not 
claim that title V requirements are impracticable or infeasible for the 
source category it proposes to exempt, but that EPA instead relied 
entirely on its claim that title V would be ``unnecessarily 
burdensome.''
    Response: Section 502(a) of the CAA states, in relevant part, that:

    * * * [t]he Administrator may, in the Administrator's discretion 
and consistent with the applicable provisions of this chapter, 
promulgate regulations to exempt one or more source categories (in 
whole or in part) from the requirements of this subsection if the 
Administrator finds that compliance with such requirements is 
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on such 
categories, except that the Administrator may not exempt any major 
source from such regulations. See 42 U.S.C. section 7661a(a).

    The statute plainly vests the Administrator with discretion to 
determine when it is appropriate to exempt non-major (i.e., area) 
sources of air pollution from the requirements of title V. The 
commenter correctly notes that EPA based the proposed exemptions solely 
on a determination that title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' and 
did not rely on whether the requirements of title V are 
``impracticable'' or ``infeasible'', which are alternative bases for 
exempting area sources from title V.
    To the extent the commenter is asserting that EPA must determine 
that all three criteria in CAA section 502 are met before an area 
source category can be exempted from title V, the commenter misreads 
the statute. The statute expressly provides that EPA may exempt an area 
source category from title V requirements if EPA determines that the 
requirements are ``impracticable, infeasible or

[[Page 540]]

unnecessarily burdensome.'' See CAA section 502 (emphasis added). If 
Congress had wanted to require that all three criteria be met before a 
category could be exempted from title V, it would have stated so by 
using the word ``and,'' in place of ``or''.
    Comment: One commenter stated that, in order to demonstrate that 
compliance with title V would be ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' EPA must 
show, among other things, that the ``burden'' of compliance is 
unnecessary. According to the commenter, by promulgating title V, 
Congress indicated that it viewed the burden imposed by its 
requirements as necessary as a general rule. The commenter maintained 
that the title V requirements provide many benefits that Congress 
viewed as necessary. Thus, in the commenter's view, EPA must show why, 
for any given category, special circumstances make compliance 
unnecessary. The commenter believed that EPA has not made that showing 
for the category it proposes to exempt.
    Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter's characterization 
of the demonstration required for determining that title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome for an area source category. As stated above, 
the CAA provides the Administrator discretion to exempt an area source 
category from title V if he determines that compliance with title V 
requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily 
burdensome'' on an area source category. See CAA section 502(a). In 
December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the term 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and developed a four-
factor balancing test for determining whether title V is unnecessarily 
burdensome for a particular area source category, such that an 
exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, December 19, 
2005 (``Exemption Rule''). In addition to interpreting the term 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' and developing the four-factor balancing 
test in the Exemption Rule, EPA applied the test to certain area source 
categories.
    The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for 
determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome on a particular 
area source category include: (1) Whether title V would result in 
significant improvements to the compliance requirements, including 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area 
source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V permitting would 
impose significant burdens on the area source category and whether the 
burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the sources may have in 
obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 FR 75324); (3) 
whether the costs of title V permitting for the area source category 
would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in 
compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); and (4) 
whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that 
are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP for the area source 
category, without relying on title V permits (70 FR 75326).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether 
compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily 
burdensome on an area source category, we considered, consistent 
with the guidance provided by the legislative history of section 
502(a), whether exempting the area source category would adversely 
affect public health, welfare or the environment. See 72 FR 15254-
15255, March 25, 2005. As discussed in the proposed rule and below, 
after conducting the four-factor balancing test and determining that 
title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome on the area 
source categories at issue here, we examined whether the exemption 
from title V would adversely affect public health, welfare and the 
environment, and found that it would not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In discussing the above factors in the Exemption Rule, we explained 
that we considered on ``a case-by-case basis the extent to which one or 
more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for a given 
source category, and then we assessed whether considered together those 
factors demonstrated that compliance with title V requirements would be 
`unnecessarily burdensome' on the category, consistent with section 
502(a) of the Act.'' See 70 FR 75323. Thus, we concluded that not all 
of the four factors must weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to 
determine that title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a particular 
area source category. Instead, the factors are to be considered in 
combination and EPA determines whether the factors, taken together, 
support an exemption from title V for a particular source category.
    The commenter asserts that ``EPA must show * * * that the 
``burden'' of compliance is unnecessary.'' This is not, however, one of 
the four factors that we developed in the Exemption Rule in 
interpreting the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502, 
but rather a new test that the commenter maintains EPA ``must'' meet in 
determining what is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' under CAA section 502. 
EPA did not re-open its interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily 
burdensome'' in CAA section 502 in the July 27, 2009 proposed rule for 
the category at issue in this rule. Rather, we applied the four-factor 
balancing test articulated in the Exemption Rule to the source category 
for which we proposed title V exemption. Had we sought to re-open our 
interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 
502 and modify it from what was articulated in the Exemption Rule, we 
would have stated so in the July 27, 2009 proposed rule and solicited 
comments on a revised interpretation, which we did not do. Accordingly, 
we reject the commenter's attempt to create a new test for determining 
what constitutes ``unnecessarily burdensome'' under CAA section 502, as 
that issue falls outside the purview of this rulemaking.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ If the commenter objected to our interpretation of the term 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in the Exemption Rule, it should have 
commented on, and challenged, that rule. Any challenge to the 
Exemption Rule is now time barred by CAA section 307(b). Although we 
received comments on the title V Exemption Rule during the 
rulemaking process, no one sought judicial review of that rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, we believe that the commenter's position that ``EPA 
must show * * * that the `burden' of compliance is unnecessary'' is 
unreasonable and contrary to Congressional intent concerning the 
applicability of title V to area sources. Congress intended to treat 
area sources differently under title V, as it expressly authorized the 
EPA Administrator to exempt such sources from the requirements of title 
V at her discretion. There are several instances throughout the CAA 
where Congress chose to treat major sources differently than non-major 
sources, as it did in CAA section 502. Moreover, although the commenter 
espouses a new interpretation of the term `unnecessarily burdensome' in 
CAA section 502 and attempts to create a new test for determining 
whether the requirements of title V are 'unnecessarily burdensome' for 
an area source category, the commenter does not explain why EPA's 
interpretation of the term `unnecessarily burdensome' is arbitrary, 
capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law. We maintain that 
our interpretation of the term `unnecessarily burdensome' in section 
502, as set forth in the Exemption Rule, is reasonable.
    Comment: One commenter stated that exempting a source category from 
title V permitting requirements deprives both the public generally and 
individual members of the public who would obtain and use permitting 
information from the benefit of citizen oversight and enforcement that 
Congress plainly viewed as necessary. According to the commenter, the 
text and legislative history of the CAA provide that Congress intended 
ordinary citizens to be able to get emissions and compliance 
information about air toxics sources and

[[Page 541]]

to be able to use that information in enforcement actions and in public 
policy decisions on a state and local level. The commenter stated that 
Congress did not think that enforcement by states or other government 
entities was enough; if it had, Congress would not have enacted the 
citizen suit provisions, and the legislative history of the CAA would 
not show that Congress viewed citizens' access to information and 
ability to enforce CAA requirements as highly important both as an 
individual right and as a crucial means to ensuring compliance. 
According to the commenter, if a source does not have a title V permit, 
it is difficult or impossible--depending on the laws, regulations and 
practices of the state in which the source operates--for a member of 
the public to obtain relevant information about its emissions and 
compliance status. The commenter stated that, likewise, it is difficult 
or impossible for citizens to bring enforcement actions. The commenter 
continued that EPA does not claim--far less demonstrate with 
substantial evidence--that citizens would have the same ability to 
obtain compliance and emissions information about sources in the 
category it proposes to exempt without title V permits. The commenter 
also said that, likewise, EPA does not claim--far less demonstrate with 
substantial evidence--that citizens would have the same enforcement 
ability. Thus, according to the commenter, the exemption EPA proposes 
plainly eliminates benefits that Congress thought necessary. The 
commenter claimed that to, justify its exemption, EPA would have to 
show that the informational and enforcement benefits that Congress 
intended title V to confer--benefits which the commenter argues are 
eliminated by the exemptions--are for some reason unnecessary with 
respect to the category it proposes to exempt. The commenter concluded 
that EPA does not even acknowledge these benefits of title V, far less 
explain why they are unnecessary, and that for this reason alone, EPA's 
proposed exemptions are unlawful and arbitrary.
    Response: Once again, the commenter attempts to create a new test 
for determining whether the requirements of title V are ``unnecessarily 
burdensome'' on an area source category. Specifically, the commenter 
argues that EPA does not claim or demonstrate with substantial evidence 
that citizens would have the same access to information and the same 
ability to enforce under these NESHAP, absent title V. The commenter's 
position represents a significant revision of the fourth factor that 
EPA developed in the Exemption Rule in interpreting the term 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502. For all of the reasons 
explained above, the commenter's attempt to create a new test for EPA 
to meet in determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' 
on an area source category cannot be sustained. Moreover, EPA's 
interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 
502 is reasonable.
    EPA reasonably applied the four factors to the facts of the 
category at issue in this rule, and the commenter has not identified 
any flaw in EPA's application of the four factor test to the area 
source category at issue here. Moreover, as explained in the proposal, 
we considered implementation and enforcement issues in the fourth 
factor of the four-factor balancing test. Specifically, the fourth 
factor of EPA's unnecessarily burdensome analysis provides that EPA 
will consider whether there are implementation and enforcement programs 
in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP 
without relying on title V permits. See 70 FR 75326.
    In applying the fourth factor here, EPA determined that there are 
adequate enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the 
CAA. As stated in the proposal, we believe that state-delegated 
programs are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP and that 
States must have adequate programs to enforce section 112 requirements 
and provide assurances that they will enforce the NESHAP before EPA 
will delegate the program. In addition, EPA retains authority to 
enforce this NESHAP under the CAA. See 74 FR 36988. The commenter does 
not challenge the conclusion that there are adequate state and Federal 
programs in place to ensure compliance with and enforcement of the 
NESHAP. Instead, the commenter provides an unsubstantiated assertion 
that information about compliance by the area sources with this NESHAP 
will not be as accessible to the public as information provided to a 
State pursuant to title V. The commenter does not, however, provide any 
information that States will treat information submitted under these 
NESHAP differently than information submitted pursuant to a title V 
permit.
    Even accepting the commenter's assertions that it is more difficult 
for citizens to enforce the NESHAP absent a title V permit, which we 
dispute, in evaluating the fourth factor in EPA's balancing test, EPA 
concluded that there are adequate implementation and enforcement 
programs in place to enforce the NESHAP. The commenter has provided no 
information to the contrary or explained how the absence of title V 
actually impairs the ability of citizens to enforce the provisions of 
these NESHAP.
    Furthermore, the fourth factor is one factor that we evaluated in 
determining if the title V requirements were unnecessarily burdensome. 
As explained above, we considered that factor together with the other 
factors and determined that it was appropriate to finalize the proposed 
exemption at issue in this rule.
    Comment: One commenter explained that title V provides important 
monitoring benefits, and, according to the commenter, EPA assumes that 
title V monitoring would not add any monitoring requirements beyond 
those required by the regulations for the category. The commenter said 
that in its proposal EPA proposed to require ``continuous parameter 
monitoring and periodic recording of the parameter for the required 
control device to assure compliance. 74 FR at 36987.'' The commenter 
further states that ``EPA argues that its proposed standard, by 
including these requirements, provides monitoring `sufficient to assure 
compliance' with the requirements of the proposed rule. Id.'' The 
commenter maintains that EPA made conclusory assertions and that the 
Agency failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that the proposed 
monitoring requirements will assure compliance with the NESHAP for the 
exempt sources. The commenter stated that, for this reason as well, its 
claim that title V requirements are ``unnecessarily burdensome'' is 
arbitrary and capricious, and its exemption is unlawful and arbitrary 
and capricious.
    Response: As noted in the earlier comment, EPA used the four-factor 
test to determine if title V requirements were unnecessarily 
burdensome. In the first factor, EPA considers whether imposition of 
title V requirements would result in significant improvements to the 
compliance requirements that are proposed for the area source 
categories. See 74 FR 36987. It is in the context of this first factor 
that EPA evaluates the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements of the proposed NESHAP to determine the extent to which 
those requirements are consistent with the requirements of title V. See 
70 FR 75323.
    The commenter asserts that ``EPA argues that its proposed standard, 
by including these requirements, `provides monitoring sufficient to 
assure

[[Page 542]]

compliance with the proposed rule.' See Fed Reg. 74 At 36987.'' In the 
proposal, we stated:
    The proposed rule requires direct monitoring of control device 
parameters, recordkeeping that also may serve as monitoring, and 
deviation and other annual reporting to assure compliance with the 
requirements.
    The monitoring component of the first factor favors title V 
exemption. For the management practices, this proposed standard 
provides monitoring in the form of recordkeeping that would assure 
compliance with the requirements of the proposed rule. Monitoring by 
means other than recordkeeping for the management practices is not 
practical or appropriate. Records are required to ensure that the 
management practices are followed. The rule requires continuous 
parameter monitoring and periodic recording of the parameter for the 
required control device to assure compliance. The proposed rule 
requires the owner or operator to record the date and results of 
periodic control device inspections, as well as any actions taken in 
response to findings of the inspections. See 74 FR 36987.
    As the above excerpt states, we required continuous parameter 
monitoring and periodic records of the parameter for new and existing 
affected sources when the rule requires the installation of such 
controls. This monitoring is in addition to the recordkeeping that 
serves as monitoring for the management practices. The commenter does 
not provide any evidence that contradicts the conclusion that the 
proposed monitoring requirements are sufficient to assure compliance 
with the standards in the rule.
    Based on the foregoing, we considered whether title V monitoring 
requirements would lead to significant improvements in the monitoring 
requirements in the proposed NESHAP and determined that they would not. 
We believe that the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements in this area source rule can assure compliance.
    For the reasons described above and in the proposed rule, the first 
factor supports exempting this area source category from title V 
requirements. Assuming, for arguments sake, that the first factor alone 
cannot support the exemption, the four-factor balancing test requires 
EPA to examine the factors in combination and determine whether the 
factors, viewed together, weigh in favor of exemption. See 74 FR 36987. 
As explained above, we determined that the factors, weighed together, 
support exemption of the area source categories from title V.
    Comment: One commenter believes that EPA cannot justify exempting 
the source from title V by asserting that compliance with title V 
requirements poses a ``significant burden.'' According to the 
commenter, regardless of whether EPA regards the burden as 
``significant,'' the Agency may not exempt a category from compliance 
with title V requirements unless compliance is ``unnecessarily 
burdensome.'' Or in the commenter's words, that ``the compliance burden 
is especially great.'' The commenter stated that in any event, EPA's 
claims about the alleged burden of compliance are entirely conclusory 
and could be applied equally to any major or area source category; 
therefore, the commenter claims that EPA has not justified why this 
source category should be exempt from title V permitting as opposed to 
any other category.
    Response: The commenter appears to take issue with the formulation 
of the second factor of the four-factor balancing test. Specifically, 
the commenter states that EPA must determine that title V compliance is 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' and not a ``significant burden,'' as 
expressed in the second factor of the four-factor balancing test.
    As we have stated before, we found the burden placed on the 
prepared feed manufacturing area source category in complying with 
title V requirements is unnecessarily burdensome when we applied the 
four-factor balancing test. We did not re-open EPA's interpretation of 
the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in this rule. As explained above, 
we maintain that the Agency's interpretation of the term 
``unnecessarily burdensome,'' as set forth in the Exemption Rule and 
reiterated in the proposal to this rule, is reasonable.
    In applying the four-factor test, we properly analyzed the second 
factor, i.e., will title V permitting impose a significant burden on 
the area source, and will that burden be aggravated by any difficulty 
that the source may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting 
agency. See 74 FR 36988. EPA found that the sources would have a 
significant burden because we estimated that the average cost of 
obtaining and complying with a title V permit in general was $65,700 
per source for a 5-year permit period. 74 FR 36988. In addition, EPA 
found that most of the sources affected by this rule are small 
businesses. Small businesses often lack the technical resources to 
comply with the permitting requirements and the financial resources 
needed to hire the necessary staff or outside consultants. EPA found 
that not only is the individual cost of permitting significant for this 
source category (i.e., $65,700) but also that the cost to this source 
category with approximately 1,800 sources as a whole is significant. 
Furthermore, given the number of affected sources in this source 
category (i.e., approximately 1,800), it would likely be difficult for 
them to obtain assistance from the permitting authorities. These 
specific factors for the affected sources alone justify that EPA has 
properly exempted the source category from title V. However, as 
discussed in the proposal and above, EPA analyzed all of the four 
factors in making its determination that these sources should be exempt 
from title V permitting requirements; and we found that the totality of 
these factors weighs heavily in favor of the exemption.
    Comment: According to one commenter, EPA argued that compliance 
with title V would not yield any gains in compliance with underlying 
requirements in the relevant NESHAP (74 FR 36988). The commenter stated 
that EPA's conclusory claim could be made equally with respect to any 
major or area source category. According to the commenter, the Agency 
provides no specific reasons to believe that the additional 
informational, monitoring, reporting, certification, and enforcement 
requirements that exist in title V, but not in this NESHAP, would not 
provide additional compliance benefits. The commenter also stated that 
the only basis for EPA's claim is, apparently, its beliefs that those 
additional requirements never confer additional compliance benefits. 
According to the commenter, by advancing such argument, EPA merely 
seeks to elevate its own policy judgment over Congress' decisions 
reflected in the CAA's text and legislative history.
    Response: The commenter takes out of context certain statements in 
the proposed rule concerning the factors used in the balancing test to 
determine if imposition of title V permit requirements is unnecessarily 
burdensome for the prepared feeds manufacturing area source category. 
The commenter also mischaracterizes the first of the four-factor 
balancing test with regard to determining whether imposition of title V 
would result in significant improvements in compliance. In addition, 
the commenter mischaracterizes the analysis in the third factor of the 
balancing test which instructs EPA to take into account any gains in 
compliance that would result from the imposition of the title V 
requirements.

[[Page 543]]

    First, EPA nowhere states, nor does it believe, that title V never 
confers additional compliance benefits as the commenter asserts. While 
EPA recognizes that requiring a title V permit offers additional 
compliance options, the statute provides that EPA must assess whether 
compliance with title V would be unnecessarily burdensome to the 
specific area sources at issue. For the source category subject to this 
rulemaking, EPA concluded that requiring title V permits would be 
unnecessarily burdensome.
    Second, the commenter mischaracterizes the first factor by 
asserting that EPA must demonstrate that title V will provide no 
additional compliance benefits. The first factor calls for a 
consideration of ``whether title V would result in significant 
improvements to the compliance requirements, including monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area source 
category.'' Thus, contrary to the commenter's assertion, the inquiry 
under the first factor is not whether title V will provide any 
compliance benefit, but rather whether it will provide significant 
improvements in compliance requirements.
    The monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the 
rule are sufficient to assure compliance with the requirements of this 
rule, consistent with the goal of title V permitting. For example, in 
the Initial Notification, the source must include information about the 
facility and its operations. The source must also certify how it is 
complying and that it has complied with the required management 
practices and associated recordkeeping requirements. The source must 
further certify that it has installed controls, if necessary to meet 
the final standards and that it is monitoring the controls, as required 
by the final rule and keeping all necessary records regarding the 
inspections of the controls and any corrective actions taken as a 
result of seeing changes in the operation of the control equipment. See 
section 63.11624 in the final rule. The source must also keep records 
and conduct inspections to document that it is complying with the 
management practices finalized in this rule. See section 63.11624 in 
the final rule. The source must monitor and demonstrate cyclone 
performance efficiency and, if applicable, must begin corrective action 
and record the specifics about the corrective action upon seeing any 
deviation in the pressure drop or fan amperage in the control 
equipment. The source must also submit deviation reports to the 
permitting agency in the annual report if there has been a deviation in 
the requirements of the rule. See section 63.11624 in the final rule. 
EPA believes that these requirements in the rule itself provide 
sufficient basis to assure compliance with the final emission 
standards, and does not believe that the title V requirements, if 
applicable to these sources, would offer significant improvements in 
the compliance of the sources with the rule.
    Third, the commenter incorrectly characterizes our statements in 
the proposed rule concerning our application of the third factor. Under 
the third factor, EPA evaluates ``whether the costs of title V 
permitting for the area source category would be justified, taking into 
consideration any potential gains in compliance likely to occur for 
such sources.'' Contrary to what the commenter alleges, EPA did not 
state in the proposed rule that compliance with title V would not yield 
any gains in compliance with the underlying requirements in the 
relevant NESHAP, nor does factor three require such a determination. 
Instead, consistent with the third factor, we considered whether the 
costs of title V are justified in light of any potential gains in 
compliance. In other words, EPA must view the costs of title V 
permitting requirements, considering any improvement in compliance 
above what the rule requires. EPA reviewed the area source category at 
issue and determined that the vast majority of the approximately 1,800 
sources that would be subject to the rule currently do not have a title 
V permit. As stated in the proposal, EPA estimated that the average 
cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit was $65,700 per 
source for a 5-year permit period, including fees. See Information 
Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, 72 FR 
32290, June 12, 2007, EPA ICR Number 1587.07. Based on this 
information, EPA determined that there is a significant cost burden to 
the industry to require title V permitting for all the sources subject 
to the rule. In addition, in analyzing factor one, EPA found that 
imposition of the title V requirements offers no significant 
improvements in compliance. In considering the third factor, we stated 
in part that, ``Because the costs of compliance with title V are so 
high, and the potential for gains in compliance is low, title V 
permitting is not justified for this source category. Accordingly, the 
third factor supports the proposed title V exemptions for this area 
source category.'' See 74 FR 36988. Most importantly, EPA considered 
all four factors in the balancing test in determining whether title V 
was unnecessarily burdensome on the prepared feeds manufacturing area 
source category. EPA found it reasonable after considering all four 
factors to exempt this source category from the permitting requirements 
in title V. Because the commenter's statements do not demonstrate a 
flaw in EPA's application of the four-factor balancing test to the 
specific facts of the source category at issue here, the comments 
provide no basis for the Agency to reconsider its proposal to exempt 
this area source category from title V.
    Comment: According to one commenter, ``[t]he agency does not 
identify any aspect of any of the underlying NESHAP showing that with 
respect to these specific NESHAP--unlike all the other major and area 
source NESHAP it has issued without title V exemptions--title V 
compliance is unnecessary.'' Instead, according to the commenter, EPA 
merely pointed to existing State requirements and the potential for 
actions by States and EPA that are generally applicable to all 
categories (along with some small business and voluntary programs). The 
commenter said that, absent a showing by EPA that distinguishes the 
sources it proposes to exempt from other sources, however, the Agency's 
argument boils down to the claim that it generally views title V 
requirements as unnecessary. The commenter stated that, while this may 
be EPA's view, it was not Congress' view when Congress enacted title V, 
and a general view that title V is unnecessary does not suffice to show 
that title V compliance is unnecessarily burdensome.
    Response: The commenter again takes issue with the Agency's test 
for determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome, as 
developed in the Exemption Rule. Our interpretation of the term 
``unnecessarily burdensome'' is not the subject of this rulemaking. In 
any event, as explained above, we believe the Agency's interpretation 
of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' is a reasonable one. To the 
extent the commenter asserts that our application of the fourth factor 
is flawed, we disagree. The fourth factor involves a determination as 
to whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place 
that are sufficient to assure compliance with the rule without relying 
on the title V permits. In discussing the fourth factor in the 
proposal, EPA states that prior to delegating implementation and 
enforcement to a State, EPA must ensure that the State has programs in 
place to enforce the rule. EPA believes that these programs will be 
sufficient to assure

[[Page 544]]

compliance with the rule. EPA also retains authority to enforce this 
NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. EPA also noted 
other factors in the proposal that together are sufficient to assure 
compliance with this area source.
    The commenter argues that EPA cannot exempt this area source 
category from title V permitting requirements because ``[t]he agency 
does not identify any aspect of any of the underlying NESHAP showing 
that with respect to these specific NESHAP--unlike all the other major 
and area source NESHAP it has issued without title V exemptions--title 
V compliance is unnecessary'' (emphasis added). As an initial matter, 
EPA cannot exempt major sources from title V permitting. 42 U.S.C. 
502(a). As for area sources, the standard that the commenter proposes--
that EPA must show that ``title V compliance is unnecessary''--is not 
consistent with the standard the Agency established in the Exemption 
Rule and applied in the proposed rule in determining if title V 
requirements are unnecessarily burdensome for the source category at 
issue.
    Furthermore, we disagree that the basis for excluding the area 
source prepared feeds manufacturing category from title V requirements 
is generally applicable to any source category. As explained in the 
proposal preamble and above, we balanced the four factors considering 
the facts and circumstances of the source category at issue in this 
rule. For example, in assessing whether the costs of requiring the 
sources to obtain a title V permit was burdensome, we concluded that 
because the vast majority of the sources did not have a title V permit, 
the costs imposed on the source category were significant compared to 
the additional compliance benefits offered by the title V permitting 
process.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the legislative history of the 
CAA shows that Congress did not intend EPA to exempt source categories 
from compliance with title V unless doing so would not adversely affect 
public health, welfare, or the environment. See 74 FR 36988. 
Nonetheless, according to the commenter, EPA does not make any showing 
that its exemption would not have adverse impacts on health, welfare 
and the environment. The commenter stated that, instead, EPA offered 
only the conclusory assertion that ``the level of control would remain 
the same'' whether title V permits are required or not 74 FR 36988-89. 
The commenter continued by stating that EPA relied entirely on the 
conclusory arguments advanced elsewhere in its proposal that compliance 
with title V would not yield additional compliance with the underlying 
NESHAP. The commenter stated that those arguments are wrong for the 
reasons given above, and therefore EPA's claims about public health, 
welfare and the environment are wrong too. The commenter also stated 
that Congress enacted title V for a reason: To assure compliance with 
all applicable requirements and to empower citizens to get information 
and enforce the CAA. The commenter said that those benefits--of which 
EPA's proposed rule deprives the public--would improve compliance with 
the underlying standards and thus have benefits for public health, 
welfare and the environment. According to the commenter, EPA has not 
demonstrated that these benefits are unnecessary with respect to any 
specific source category, but again simply rests on its own apparent 
belief that they are never necessary. The commenter concluded that, for 
the reasons given above, the attempt to substitute EPA's judgment for 
Congress' is unlawful and arbitrary.
    Response: Congress gave the Administrator the authority to exempt 
area sources from compliance with title V if, in his or her discretion, 
the Administrator ``finds that compliance with [title V] is 
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome.'' See CAA 
section 502(a). EPA has interpreted one of the three justifications for 
exempting area sources, ``unnecessarily burdensome'', as requiring 
consideration of the four factors discussed above. EPA applied these 
four factors to the area source category subject to this rule and 
concluded that requiring title V for this area source category would be 
unnecessarily burdensome. In addition to determining that title V would 
be unnecessarily burdensome on the prepared feed manufacturing area 
source category, EPA also considered whether exempting the area source 
category would adversely affect public health, welfare or the 
environment. As explained in the proposal preamble, we concluded that 
exempting the area source category at issue in this rule would not 
adversely affect public health, welfare or the environment because the 
level of control would be the same even if title V applied. We further 
explained in the proposal preamble that the title V permit program does 
not generally impose new substantive air quality control requirements 
on sources, but instead requires that certain procedural measures be 
followed, particularly with respect to determining compliance with 
applicable requirements. The commenter has not provided any information 
that exemption of this area source category from title V will adversely 
affect public health, welfare or the environment.

VI. Impacts of the Final Standards

    We project that the baseline PM emissions from the estimated 1,800 
facilities in the prepared feeds source category are approximately 
11,000 tons/yr, with approximatley 11,000 tons/yr of PM2.5, 
195 tons/yr of manganese and just over 8 tons/yr of chromium. We 
believe that management practices are already being implemented 
throughout the industry. Therefore, we do not expect any additional 
reductions in chromium compound, manganese compound, or general PM 
emissions from these measures. We estimate that the requirement to 
install cyclones on the pelleting processes at the facilities with 
average daily feed production levels exceeding 50 tpd will result in 
emission reductions of around 1,100 tons/yr of PM, 100 tons/yr of 
PM2.5, and approximately 20 tons/yr of manganese and 
chromium emissions. While cyclones do remove PM from the air stream, 
these solids are typically recycled back to the process. Therefore, we 
do not anticipate any significant indirect or secondary air impacts of 
this rule as proposed. In addition, we do not expect any non-air 
health, environmental, or energy impacts.
    As noted above, we believe all prepared feed manufacturing 
facilities already implement the proposed management practices. 
Therefore, there will be no additional costs for these measures. We 
estimate that the nationwide capital costs for the installation of 
cyclones on the pelleting cooling operations at the large facilities 
will be around $2.5 million. The associated annual costs are estimated 
to be just over $3 million/year.
    Many of the plants in this analysis have fewer than 500 employees, 
which is the threshold to be considered ``small'' by the Small Business 
Administration. It is currently estimated that under 2 percent of the 
facilities (26 facilities) in the category would potentially need to 
install new cyclones under the proposed regulatory alternative. The 
potential impact on the industry as a percentage of the value of 
shipments is small. Under the proposed regulatory alternative, the 
largest potential impact is estimated as 0.96 percent of shipments for 
a subset of firms with an overall impact of 0.94 percent of shipments 
for the industry as a whole. As a result, this action is not expected 
to have a significant impact on

[[Page 545]]

a substantial number of small entities or the economy as a whole, 
regardless of whether or not the firms in the industry are able to pass 
along any increases in their costs to the consumers.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms 
of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) because it may 
raise novel legal or policy issues and is, therefore, subject to review 
under the Executive Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to 
OMB for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in 
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for 
this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this final rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document 
prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2354.02.
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this final rule are 
based on the requirements in EPA's NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 
the General Provisions are mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the CAA 
(42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other than emissions data submitted 
to EPA pursuant to the information collection requirements for which a 
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to CAA 
section 114(c) and the Agency's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 
2, subpart B.
    This NESHAP requires Prepared Feeds Manufacturing area sources to 
submit an Initial Notification and a Notification of Compliance Status 
according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the General Provisions 
(subpart A). The annual burden for this information collection averaged 
over the first three years of this ICR is estimated to be a total of 
27,000 labor hours per year at a cost of $1.7 million or approximately 
$980 per facility.
    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 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act 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 statute unless the agency certifies that the rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that meets 
the Small Business Administration size standards for small businesses 
found at 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; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is 
estimated to impact a total of almost 1,800 area source prepared feeds 
manufacturing facilities. We estimate that all these facilities may be 
small entities. We have determined that small entity compliance costs, 
as assessed by the facilities' cost-to-sales ratio, are expected to be 
less than 0.004 percent for the estimated 26 facilities that would not 
initially be in compliance. Although this final rule contains 
requirements for new area sources, we are not aware of any new area 
sources being constructed now or planned in the next three years, and 
consequently, we did not estimate any impacts for new sources.
    Although this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has 
tried to reduce such impact. The standards represent practices and 
controls that are common throughout the prepared feeds manufacturing 
industry. The standards also require only the essential recordkeeping 
and reporting needed to demonstrate and verify compliance. These 
standards were developed in consultation with small business 
representatives on the State and national level and the trade 
associations that represent small businesses.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result 
in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any one 
year. This rule is not expected to impact State, local, or Tribal 
governments. The nationwide annualized cost of this rule for affected 
industrial sources is around $3 million/yr. Thus, this rule would not 
be subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
    This final rule would also not be subject to the requirements of 
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The rule 
would not apply to such governments and would impose no obligations 
upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    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, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule does not impose any 
requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive Order 
13132 does not apply to this final rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This final rule 
imposes no requirements on Tribal governments; thus, Executive Order 
13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 
as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety 
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order 
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not 
subject to EO 13045 because it is based solely on technology 
performance.

[[Page 546]]

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

    This final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined 
in Executive Order 13211 (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. Further, we have concluded that this 
rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects. Existing energy 
requirements for this industry would not be significantly impacted by 
the additional controls or other equipment that may be required by this 
rule.

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, 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 (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the Agency 
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary 
consensus standards. However, we identified no such standards, and none 
were brought to our attention in comments. Therefore, EPA has decided 
to use technical standard Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A in the 
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area 
Sources: Prepared Feeds Manufacturing--40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDD.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule would not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the 
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This rule establishes national standards for the 
Prepared Feeds Manufacturing area source category; this will reduce HAP 
emissions, therefore decreasing the amount of emissions to which all 
affected populations are exposed.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General 
of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this final 
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States 
prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. A 
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in 
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 
5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule will be effective on January 5, 2010.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 16, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.


0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart DDDDDDD to read as follows:
Subpart DDDDDDD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Area Sources: Prepared Feeds Manufacturing

Applicability and Compliance Dates

Sec.
63.11619 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11620 What are my compliance dates?

Standards, Monitoring, and Compliance Requirements

63.11621 What are the standards for new and existing prepared feeds 
manufacturing facilities?
63.11622 What are the monitoring requirements for new and existing 
sources?
63.11623 What are the testing requirements?
63.11624 What are the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping 
requirements?

Other Requirements and Information

63.11625 What parts of the General Provisions apply to my facility?
63.11626 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.11627 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11628--63.11638 [Reserved]

Tables to Subpart DDDDDDD of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart DDDDDDD of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Prepared Feeds Manufacturing Area Sources

Subpart DDDDDDD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Area Sources: Prepared Feeds Manufacturing

Applicability and Compliance Dates


Sec.  63.11619  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a 
prepared feeds manufacturing facility that uses a material containing 
chromium or a material containing manganese and is an area source of 
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP).
    (b) The provisions of this subpart apply to each new and existing 
prepared feeds manufacturing affected source. A prepared feeds 
manufacturing affected source is the collection of all equipment and 
activities necessary to produce animal feed from the point in the 
process where a material containing chromium or a material containing 
manganese is added, to the point where the finished animal feed product 
leaves the facility. This includes, but is not limited to, areas where 
materials containing chromium and manganese are stored, areas where 
materials

[[Page 547]]

containing chromium and manganese are temporarily stored prior to 
addition to the feed at the mixer, mixing and grinding processes, 
pelleting and pellet cooling processes, packing and bagging processes, 
crumblers and screens, bulk loading operations, and all conveyors and 
other equipment that transfer the feed materials throughout the 
manufacturing facility.
    (1) A prepared feeds manufacturing affected source is existing if 
you commenced construction or reconstruction of the facility on or 
before July 27, 2009.
    (2) A prepared feeds manufacturing affected source is new if you 
commenced construction or reconstruction of the facility after July 27, 
2009.
    (3) A collection of equipment and activities necessary to produce 
animal feed at a prepared feeds manufacturing facility becomes an 
affected source when you commence using a material containing chromium 
or a material containing manganese.
    (c) An affected source is no longer subject to this subpart if the 
facility stops using materials containing chromium or manganese.
    (d) This subpart does not apply to the facilities identified in 
paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Prepared feeds manufacturing facilities that do not add any 
materials containing chromium or manganese to any product manufactured 
at the facility.
    (2) Research or laboratory facilities as defined in section 
112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
    (e) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required 
by law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3. 
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with 
the provisions of this subpart.


Sec.  63.11620  What are my compliance dates?

    (a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must 
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart by no 
later than January 5, 2012.
    (b) If you own or operate a new affected source, you must achieve 
compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart by January 5, 
2010, or upon startup of your affected source, whichever is later.
    (c) If you own or operate a facility that becomes an affected 
source in accordance with Sec.  63.11619 after the applicable 
compliance date in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, you must 
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart by 
the date that you commence using a material containing manganese or a 
material containing chromium.
    (d) If the average daily feed production level exceeds 50 tons per 
day for a calendar year for a facility not complying with the 
requirement in Sec.  63.11621(e) to install and operate a cyclone to 
control emissions from pelleting operations, you must comply with Sec.  
63.11621(e) and all associated requirements by July 1 of the year 
following the one-year period.

Standards, Monitoring, and Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.11621  What are the standards for new and existing prepared 
feed manufacturing facilities?

    You must comply with the management practices and standards in 
paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section at all times.
    (a) In all areas of the affected source where materials containing 
chromium or manganese are stored, used, or handled, you must comply 
with the management practices in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
    (1) You must perform housekeeping measures to minimize excess dust. 
These measures must include, but not be limited to, the practices 
specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) You must use either an industrial vacuum system or manual 
sweeping to reduce the amount of dust;
    (ii) At least once per month, you must remove dust from walls, 
ledges, and equipment using low pressure air or by other means, and 
then sweep or vacuum the area;
    (iii) You must keep doors shut except during normal ingress and 
egress.
    (2) You must maintain and operate all process equipment in 
accordance with manufacturer's specifications and in a manner to 
minimize dust creation.
    (b) You must store any raw materials containing chromium or 
manganese in closed containers.
    (c) The mixer where materials containing chromium or manganese are 
added must be covered at all times when mixing is occurring, except 
when the materials are being added to the mixer. Materials containing 
chromium or manganese must be added to the mixer in a manner that 
minimizes emissions.
    (d) For the bulk loading process where prepared feed products 
containing chromium or manganese are loaded into trucks or railcars, 
you must use a device at the loadout end of each bulk loader to lessen 
fugitive emissions by reducing the distance between the loading arm and 
the truck or railcar.
    (e) For the pelleting operations at prepared feeds manufacturing 
facilities with an average daily feed production level exceeding 50 
tons per day, you must capture emissions and route them to a cyclone 
designed to reduce emissions of particulate matter by 95 percent or 
greater. You must also comply with the provisions in paragraphs (e)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) You must demonstrate that the cyclone is designed to reduce 
emissions of particulate matter by 95 percent or greater using one of 
the methods specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iii) of this 
section.
    (i) Manufacturer specifications;
    (ii) Certification by a professional engineer or responsible 
official; or
    (iii) A performance test conducted in accordance with Sec.  
63.11623 of this section.
    (2) You must establish an inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure 
drop, or fan amperage range that represents proper operation of the 
cyclone in accordance with the applicable requirement in paragraphs 
(e)(2)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section.
    (i) If you demonstrate the cyclone design efficiency using 
manufacturer specifications in accordance with paragraph (e)(1)(i) of 
this section, the inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or 
fan amperage range that represents proper operation of the cyclone must 
be provided by the manufacturer.
    (ii) If you demonstrate the cyclone design efficiency using 
certification by a professional engineer or responsible official in 
accordance with paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section, this 
certification must include calculations to establish an inlet flow 
rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage range that 
represents proper operation of the cyclone.
    (iii) If you demonstrate the cyclone design efficiency using a 
performance test in accordance with paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this 
section, you must monitor the inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure 
drop, or fan amperage during the test and establish a range that 
represents proper operation of the cyclone based on the data obtained 
during the test.
    (3) You must maintain and operate the cyclone in accordance with 
manufacturer's specifications. If manufacturer's specifications are not 
available, you must develop and follow standard maintenance and 
operating

[[Page 548]]

procedures that ensure proper operation of the cyclone.


Sec.  63.11622  What are the monitoring requirements for new and 
existing sources?

    (a) If you own or operate an affected source required by Sec.  
63.11621(d) to use a device at the loadout end of a bulk loader that 
reduces fugitive emissions from a bulk loading process, you must 
perform monthly inspections of each device to ensure it is in proper 
working condition. You must record the results of these inspections in 
accordance with Sec.  63.11624(c)(4) of this subpart.
    (b) If you own or operate an affected source required by Sec.  
63.11621(e) to install and operate a cyclone to control emissions from 
pelleting operations, you must comply with the inspection and 
monitoring requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) You must perform quarterly inspections of the cyclone for 
corrosion, erosion, or any other damage that could result in air in-
leakage, and record the results in accordance with Sec.  
63.11624(c)(5)(ii).
    (2) You must monitor inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure 
drop, or fan amperage at least once per day when the pelleting process 
is in operation. You must also record the inlet flow rate, inlet 
velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage in accordance with Sec.  
63.11624(c)(5)(iii).


Sec.  63.11623  What are the testing requirements?

    (a) If you are demonstrating that the cyclone required by Sec.  
63.11621(e) is designed to reduce emissions of particulate matter by 95 
percent or greater by the performance test option in Sec.  
63.11621(e)(1)(iii), you must conduct a test in accordance with 
paragraph (b) of this section and calculate the percent reduction in 
accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) You must use Method 5 in Appendix A to part 60 to determine the 
particulate matter mass rate at the inlet and outlet of the cyclone. 
You must conduct at least three runs at the cyclone inlet and three 
runs at the cyclone outlet. Each run must have a sampling time of at 
least 60 minutes and a sample volume of at least 0.85 dscm (30 dscf).
    (c) You must calculate the percent particulate matter reduction 
using Equation 1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA10.004

Where:

PM RED = particulate matter reduction, percent;
MINLET = Mass of particulate matter at the inlet of the 
cyclone, dry basis, corrected to standard conditions, g/min;
MOUTLET = Mass of particulate matter at the outlet of the 
cyclone, dry basis, corrected to standard conditions, g/min;


Sec.  63.11624  What are the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping 
requirements?

    (a) Notifications. You must submit the notifications identified in 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Initial Notification. If you are the owner of an affected 
source you must submit an Initial Notification no later than May 5, 
2010, or 120 days after you become subject to this subpart, whichever 
is later. The Initial Notification must include the information 
specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) The name, address, phone number and e-mail address of the owner 
and operator;
    (ii) The address (physical location) of the affected source;
    (iii) An identification of the relevant standard (i.e., this 
subpart); and
    (iv) A brief description of the operation.
    (2) Notification of Compliance Status. If you are the owner of an 
existing affected source, you must submit a Notification of Compliance 
Status in accordance with Sec.  63.9(h) of the General Provisions on or 
before May 4, 2012. If you are the owner or operator of a new affected 
source, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status within 120 
days of initial startup, or by May 4, 2012, whichever is later. If you 
own or operate an affected source that becomes an affected source in 
accordance with Sec.  63.11619(b)(3) after the applicable compliance 
date in Sec.  63.11620 (a) or (b), you must submit a Notification of 
Compliance Status within 120 days of the date that you commence using 
materials containing manganese or chromium. This Notification of 
Compliance Status must include the information specified in paragraphs 
(a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Your company's name and address;
    (ii) A statement by a responsible official with that official's 
name, title, phone number, e-mail address and signature, certifying the 
truth, accuracy, and completeness of the notification and a statement 
of whether the source has complied with all the relevant standards and 
other requirements of this subpart;
    (iii) If you own or operate an affected source required by Sec.  
63.11621(e) to install and operate a cyclone to control emissions from 
pelleting operations, the inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure 
drop, or fan amperage range that constitutes proper operation of the 
cyclone determined in accordance with Sec.  63.11621(e)(2).
    (iv) If you own or operate an affected source that is not subject 
to the requirement in Sec.  63.11621(e) to install and operate a 
cyclone to control emissions from pelleting operations because your 
initial average daily feed production level was 50 tpd or less, 
documentation of your initial daily pelleting production level 
determination.
    (b) Annual compliance certification report. You must, by March 1 of 
each year, prepare an annual compliance certification report for the 
previous calendar year containing the information specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this section.
    (1) Your company's name and address.
    (2) A statement by a responsible official with that official's 
name, title, phone number, e-mail address and signature, certifying the 
truth, accuracy, and completeness of the notification and a statement 
of whether the source has complied with all the relevant standards and 
other requirements of this subpart.
    (3) If the source is not in compliance, include a description of 
deviations from the applicable requirements, the time periods during 
which the deviations occurred, and the corrective actions taken.
    (4) Identification of all instances when the daily inlet flow rate, 
inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage is outside range that 
constitutes proper operation of the cyclone submitted as part of your 
Notification of Compliance Status. In these instances, include the time 
periods when this occurred and the corrective actions taken.
    (5) If you own or operate an affected source that is not subject to 
the requirement in Sec.  63.11621(e) to install

[[Page 549]]

and operate a cyclone to control emissions from pelleting operations 
because your average daily feed production level was 50 tpd or less, 
notification if your average daily feed production level for the 
previous year exceeded 50 tpd.
    (6) If you own or operate an affected source that was subject to 
the requirement in Sec.  63.11621(e) to install and operate a cyclone 
to control emissions from pelleting operations, notification if your 
average daily feed production level for the previous year was 50 tpd or 
less and that you are no longer complying with Sec.  63.11621(e).
    (c) Records. You must maintain the records specified in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (5) of this section in accordance with paragraphs (c)(6) 
through (8) of this section.
    (1) As required in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv), you must keep a copy of 
each notification that you submitted to comply with this subpart in 
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, and all documentation 
supporting any Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance 
Status that you submitted.
    (2) You must keep a copy of each Annual Compliance Certification 
prepared in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section.
    (3) For each device used to comply with the requirements in Sec.  
63.11621(d), you must keep the records of all inspections including the 
information identified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (iii) of this 
section.
    (i) The date, place, and time of each inspection;
    (ii) Person performing the inspection;
    (iii) Results of the inspection, including the date, time, and 
duration of the corrective action period from the time the inspection 
indicated a problem to the time of the indication that the device was 
replaced or restored to operation.
    (4) For each cyclone used to comply with the requirements in Sec.  
63.11621(e), you must keep the records in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through 
(v) of this section.
    (i) If you demonstrate that the cyclone is designed to reduce 
emission of particulate matter by 95 percent or greater by 
manufacturer's specifications in accordance with Sec.  
63.11621(e)(1(i), you must keep the records specified in paragraphs 
(c)(4)(i)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) Information from the manufacturer regarding the design 
efficiency of the cyclone,
    (B) The inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan 
amperage range that represents proper operation of the cyclone,
    (C) The operation and maintenance procedures to ensure proper 
operation of the cyclone.
    (ii) If you demonstrate that the cyclone is designed to reduce 
emissions of particulate matter by 95 percent or greater by 
certification by a professional engineer in accordance with paragraph 
Sec.  63.11621(e)(1)(ii), you must keep the records specified in 
paragraphs (c)(4)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) Certification regarding the design efficiency of the cyclone, 
along with supporting information,
    (B) The inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan 
amperage range that represents proper operation of the cyclone,
    (C) The standard maintenance and operating procedures that ensure 
proper operation of the cyclone.
    (iii) If you demonstrate that the cyclone is designed to reduce 
emissions of particulate matter by 95 percent or greater by a 
performance in accordance with paragraph Sec.  63.11621(e)(1)(iii), you 
must keep the records specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through 
(C) of this section.
    (A) Results of the testing conducted in accordance with Sec.  
63.11623,
    (B) The inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan 
amperage range that represents proper operation of the cyclone,
    (C) The standard maintenance and operating procedures that ensure 
proper operation of the cyclone.
    (iv) Records of all quarterly inspections including the information 
identified in paragraphs (c)(4)(iv)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) The date, place, and time of each inspection;
    (B) Person performing the inspection;
    (C) Results of the inspection, including the date, time, and 
duration of the corrective action period from the time the inspection 
indicated a problem to the time of the indication that the cyclone was 
restored to proper operation.
    (v) Records of the daily inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure 
drop, or fan amperage measurements, along with the date, time, and 
duration of the correction action period from the time the monitoring 
indicated a problem to the time of the indication that the cyclone was 
restored to proper operation.
    (5) If you own or operate an affected source that is not subject to 
the requirement in Sec.  63.11621(e) to install and operate a cyclone 
to control emissions from pelleting operations because your average 
daily feed production level is 50 tpd or less, feed production records 
to enable the determination of the average daily feed production level.
    (6) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available 
for expeditious review, according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1).
    (7) As specified in Sec.  63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record 
for 5 years following the date of each recorded action.
    (8) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the 
date of each recorded action according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1). You may 
keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
    (d) If you no longer use materials that contain manganese or 
chromium after January 5, 2010, you must submit a Notification in 
accordance with Sec.  63.11619(c) which includes the information 
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Your company's name and address;
    (2) A statement by a responsible official indicating that the 
facility no longer uses materials that contain chromium or manganese. 
This statement should also include an effective date for the 
termination of use of materials that contain chromium or manganese, and 
the responsible official's name, title, phone number, e-mail address 
and signature.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  63.11625  What parts of the General Provisions apply to my 
facility?

    Table 1 of this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.

[[Page 550]]

Sec.  63.11626  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by EPA or a 
delegated authority such as your State, local, or Tribal agency. If the 
EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or 
Tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and 
enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office to 
find out if implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated 
to your State, local, or Tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or Tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section 
are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the 
State, local, or Tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or 
Tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (1) Approval of an alternative nonopacity emissions standard under 
Sec.  63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of an alternative opacity emissions standard under 
Sec.  63.6(h)(9).
    (3) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A ``major change to test method'' is defined in 
Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec.  63.8(f). A 
``major change to monitoring'' is defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (5) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping and reporting under 
Sec.  63.10(f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is 
defined in Sec.  63.90.


Sec.  63.11627  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA, in Sec.  63.2, 
and in this section.
    Animal feed includes: Dehydrated alfalfa meal; alfalfa prepared as 
feed for animals; cubed alfalfa; prepared animal feed; chopped, 
crushed, or ground barley feed; prepared bird feed; blended animal 
feed; bone meal prepared as feed for animals and fowls; cattle feeds, 
supplements, concentrates, and premixes; prepared chicken feeds; cattle 
feed citrus pulp; complete livestock feed; custom milled animal feed; 
dairy cattle feeds supplements, concentrates, and premixes; earthworm 
food and bedding; animal feed concentrates; animal feed premixes; 
animal feed supplements; prepared animal feeds; specialty animal (e.g., 
guinea pig, mice, mink) feeds; fish food for feeding fish; custom 
ground grains for animal feed; cubed hay; kelp meal and pellets animal 
feed; laboratory animal feed; livestock feeds, supplements, 
concentrates and premixes; alfalfa meal; bone meal prepared as feed for 
animals and fowls; livestock micro and macro premixes; mineral feed 
supplements; animal mineral supplements; pet food; poultry feeds, 
supplements, and concentrates; rabbit food; shell crushed and ground 
animal feed; swine feed; swine feed supplements, concentrates, and 
premixes; and prepared turkey feeds. Feed products produced for dogs 
and cats are not considered animal feed for the purposes of this 
subpart.
    Average daily feed production level means the average amount of 
animal feed products produced each day over an annual period. The 
initial determination of the average daily feed production level is 
based on the one-year period prior to the compliance date for existing 
sources, or the design rate for new sources. The subsequent average 
daily feed production levels are determined annually and are based on 
the amount of animal feed products produced in a calendar year divided 
by the number of days in which the production processes were in 
operation.
    Cyclone means a mechanically aided collector that uses inertia to 
separate particulate matter from the gas stream as it spirals through 
the cyclone.
    Material containing chromium means a material that contains 
chromium (Cr, atomic number 24) in amounts greater than or equal to 0.1 
percent by weight.
    Material containing manganese means a material that contains 
manganese (Mn, atomic number 25) in amounts greater than or equal to 
1.0 percent by weight.
    Pelleting operations means all operations that make pelleted animal 
feed, including but not limited to, steam conditioning, die-casting, 
drying, cooling, and crumbling, and granulation.
    Prepared feeds manufacturing facility means a facility that is 
primarily engaged in manufacturing animal feed. A facility is primarily 
engaged in manufacturing animal feed if the production of animal feed 
comprises greater than 50 percent of the total production of the 
facility on an annual basis. Facilities primarily engaged in raising or 
feeding animals are not prepared feed manufacturing facilities. 
Facilities engaged in the growing of agricultural crops that are used 
in the manufacturing of feed are not considered prepared feeds 
manufacturing facilities.


Sec.  63.11628-63.11638  [Reserved]

Tables to Subpart DDDDDDD of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart DDDDDDD of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Prepared Feeds Manufacturing Area Sources

    As required in Sec.  63.11619, you must meet each requirement in 
the following table that applies to you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Applies to Subpart
          Citation                   Subject              DDDDDDD?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1........................  Applicability.......  Yes.
63.2........................  Definitions.........  Yes.
63.3........................  Units and             Yes.
                               Abbreviations.
63.4........................  Prohibited            Yes.
                               Activities and
                               Circumvention.
63.5........................  Preconstruction       No.
                               Review and
                               Notification
                               Requirements.
63.6(a),(b)(1)-(b)(5),        Compliance with       Yes.
 (b)(7), (c), (f)(2)-(3),      Standards and
 (g), (i), and (j).            Maintenance
                               Requirements.
63.6(e)(1), (e)(3), (f)(1),   Startup, shutdown,    No. Standards apply
 and (h).                      and malfunction       at all times,
                               requirements and      including during
                               opacity/visible       startup, shutdown,
                               emission standards.   and malfunction
                                                     events.
63.7........................  Performance Testing   Yes.
                               Requirements.
63.8........................  Monitoring            Yes.
                               Requirements.
63.9(a), (b), (c), (d), (h),  Notification          Yes.
 (i), and (j).                 Requirements.
63.9(e), (f), (g)...........  ....................  No.
63.10(a),(b)(1), (b)(2)(i)-   Recordkeeping and     Yes.
 (iii), (b)(2)(vi)-(xiv),      Reporting
 (c), (d)(1), (e), and (f).    Requirements.
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v), (b)(3),  Recordkeeping and     No.
 and (d)(2)-(5).               Reporting
                               Requirements.
63.11.......................  Control Device        No.
                               Requirements.

[[Page 551]]


63.12.......................  State Authorities     Yes.
                               and Delegations.
63.13.......................  Addresses...........  Yes.
63.14.......................  Incorporations by     Yes.
                               Reference.
63.15.......................  Availability of       Yes.
                               Information and
                               Confidentiality.
63.16.......................  Performance Track     Yes.
                               Provisions.
63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)-(9),       Reserved............  No.
 (b)(2), (c)(3)-(4), (d),
 63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4),
 (d), (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii),
 (h)(3), (h)(5)(iv),
 63.8(a)(3), 63.9(b)(3),
 (h)(4), 63.10(c)(2)-(4),
 (c)(9).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E9-30498 Filed 1-4-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
