ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080; FRL-]

RIN 2060-AO98

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollu tants: Area Source Standards for Prepared Feeds Manufactur ing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

DATES: This final rule is effective on [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The incorpor ation by reference of certain publications listed in this ru le is effective as of [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080. All docu ments in the docket are listed in the Federal Docket Managem ent2

System index at http://www.regulations.gov index . Although listed in the index, some information is not public ly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyright ed material, will be publicly available only in hard c opy form. Publicly available docket materials are avai lable either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washin gton, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holida ys. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (20 2) 566- 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket i s (202)

566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jan King, Outreach and Information Division, Office of Air Quality Plannin g and Standards (C404-05), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telep hone 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 o rganized as follows: I. General Information3

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 fr om 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 Ad dress Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and L owIncome Populations K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information4

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 mangane se compounds to their product. In general, the facili ties potentially affected by the rule are covered under the North American Industrial Classification System (NA ICS) code listed in the following table.

Category NAICS code 1 Examples of regulated

entities Industry:

Other Animal Foods Manufacturing 311119 Animal feeds, prepared (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 entit ies likely to be affected by this action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this action, yo u should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.116 19 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 ent ity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CF R 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).5

B. Where can I get a copy of this document? In addition to being available in the docket, a n electronic copy of this final action will also be a vailable on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). A copy of this final actio n will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following addr ess: www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg . The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air polluti on

control.

C. Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of this final rule is available onl y by filing a petition for review in the United States C ourt of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by [IN SERT

DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDER AL REGISTER]. 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 proc eedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides th at “[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which w as raised with reasonable specificity during the perio d for public comment (including any public hearing) may b e raised6

during judicial review.” This section also provide s a mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f the person raising an object ion can demonstrate to EPA that it was impracticable to rai se such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period f or public comment (but within the time specified for j udicial review) and if such objection is of central relevan ce to the outcome of the rule.” Any person seeking to ma ke 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 Pennsylva nia 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 Cou nsel (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 establis h national emission standards for hazardous air pollu tants (NESHAP) for both major and area sources of HAP tha t are listed for regulation under CAA section 112(c). A major source emits or has the potential to emit 10 tons p er year7

(tpy) or more of any single HAP or 25 tpy or more o f 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 em issions from area sources, pose the greatest threat to publ ic health in the largest number of urban areas. EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrate d Urban Air Toxics Strategy, (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, in the Strategy, EPA identified 30 HA P 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 ensu re that area sources representing 90 percent of the emissio ns of the 30 urban HAP are subject to regulation. We imp lemented these requirements through the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). A primary g oal of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent reduction i n cancer incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationa ry

sources. Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards or requirements for area sourc es "which provide for the use of generally available c ontrol8

technologies or management practices (GACT) by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants."

Additional information on GACT is found in the Sena te 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 applicat ion 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 con sider costs and economic impacts in determining GACT. Th is is particularly important when developing regulations for source categories, like this one, that have many sm all businesses, as defined by the Small Business

Administration. Determining what constitutes GACT involves conside ring the control technologies and management practices t hat are generally available to the area sources in the sour ce category. We also consider the standards applicabl e to major sources in the same industrial sector to dete rmine if the control technologies and management practices a re transferable and generally available to area source s. In appropriate circumstances, we may also consider9

technologies and practices at area and major source s in similar categories to determine whether such techno logies and practices could be considered generally availab le for the area source category at issue. Finally, as not ed above, in determining GACT for a particular area so urce category, we consider the costs and economic impact s of available control technologies and management pract ices on that category. We are promulgating these national emission standa rds in response to a court-ordered deadline that requir es 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 ch anges in detail in the summary of comments and responses (se ction V of this preamble). A. Applicability10

The final rule applies to any prepared feeds manufacturing facility that produces animal feed pr oducts (not including cat and dog feed products) and uses a material containing chromium or a material containi ng 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 o ther 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 a nimal feed (except dog and cat) from ingredients, such as grains, oilseed mill products, and meat products. The NAIC S 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 3 11119. This definition also clarifies that dog and cat fee d products are not considered animal feed, consistent with the NAICS definition. The final rule, therefore, a pplies not only to “traditional” feed products, but also t o animal feed ingredients, supplements, premixes, concentrat es, and other products included in the definition of NAICS code 311119. Second, we revised the definition of a “pr epared11

feed manufacturing facility” to include the concept of “primarily engaged.” To meet the definition of a p repared feeds manufacturing facility, a facility must be “p rimarily engaged” in the production of animal feed. We iden tified that primarily engaged in the production of animal feed means that the animal feed makes up at least half o f 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 mater ial containing chromium” and “a material containing man ganese.” ”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 manga nese” 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 fa cility starts using a material containing chromium or mang anese after the applicable compliance date. Specifically , facilities that are not subject to the rule but sta rt adding materials containing chromium or manganese i n the future become subject to the rule at the time they begin adding these HAP. While the rule does not apply to12

prepared feeds manufacturing facilities that do not use any materials containing chromium or manganese, we adde d provisions that make it clear that facilities that stop using all materials containing chromium and mangane se 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 industri al vacuum, remove dust from walls and ledges, keep doo rs shut). The only change we made to these provisions was to require that doors be kept shut except during norma l ingress and egress, rather than the proposed requir ement 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 tha t 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 ch ange from the proposed requirements, which specified tha t “drop

filter socks” be used on bulk loaders. The final rule requires that emissions from the pelleting process at facilities with an average dai ly feed production level exceeding 50 tons per day (tpd) be13

collected and routed to a cyclone designed to achie ve 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 yo ur cyclone is designed to achieve a 95 percent reducti on in PM emissions, the final rule provides three different options: (1) manufacturer’s specifications certifying that t he cyclone is designed to achieve 95 percent PM reduct ion, (2) certification by a professional engineer or res ponsible official that the cyclone is designed to achieve a 95 percent reduction in PM emissions, or (3) a Meth od 5 performance test to demonstrate that the cyclone ca n 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 includ e other measures that indicate proper flow through the cycl one. Specifically, the final rule allows monitoring of i nlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan am perage. C. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements14

The final rule requires that all sources that have an average daily feed production level of 50 tpd or le ss to keep production records. These facilities must als o submit their initial average daily feed production level i n the Notification of Compliance Status report. We added recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the new options on demonstrating cy clone performance efficiency (certification by profession al engineer or responsible official, or testing). We also added provisions that require facilities that disco ntinue the use of all materials containing chromium and ma nganese to notify the Agency that they are no longer subjec t to the

rule.

D. Definitions As discussed above, definitions for animal feed, a material containing chromium, a material containing manganese, and prepared feeds manufacturing facilit y were added or modified. The definition of filter drop s ock was removed, as this term is no longer used in the fina l rule. IV. Summary of Final Standards A. What are the applicability provisions and compl iance

dates? Subpart DDDDDDD standards apply to each new or existing prepared feeds manufacturing facility that is an15

area source and uses a material containing chromium or a material containing manganese. A prepared feeds manufacturing facility is a facility where animal f eed (as defined in the rule) makes up at least half of the facility’s annual production of all products. A ma terial containing chromium is any material that contains c hromium in an amount greater than 0.1 percent by weight, an d a material containing manganese is any material that contains manganese in an amount greater than 1 percent by we ight. All existing area source facilities subject to thi s rule are required to comply with the rule requireme nts no later than [INSERT DATE TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. A new source is any

affected source that commenced construction or reconstruction after July 27, 2009. All new source s are required to comply with the rule requirements by [I NSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or upo n startup, whichever is later. Prepared feeds manufacturing facilities that do no t 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 t o comply at the time that they start using such materials. Also, if16

a facility stops using all materials containing chr omium and manganese, they are no longer subject to the ru le 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 an d management practices. There are two general manage ment practices that apply in all areas where materials containing chromium or manganese are stored, used, or handled. The first is to perform housekeeping meas ures to

minimize excess dust that could contain chromium or manganese. The specific measures required by the r ule are: (1) use either an industrial vacuum system or manua l sweeping to reduce the amount of dust, (2) at least once per month, remove dust from walls, ledges, and equi pment using low pressure air or by other means, and then sweep or vacuum the area, and (3) keep doors shut except dur ing normal ingress and egress. The second general management practice is the requirement to maintain and operate all process equ ipment that stores, processes, or contains chromium or man ganese in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications an d in a

manner to minimize dust creation.17

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.

• For mixing operations, materials containing chromiu m 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 materia ls are being added.

• For bulk loading processes where prepared feeds products containing chromium or manganese are loade d into trucks or railcars, you must use a device at t he loadout end of each bulk loader to lessen fugitive emissions by reducing the distance between the load ing

arm and the truck or railcar. In addition to the above requirements that apply to all facilities, new and existing facilities with av erage daily feed production levels exceeding 50 tpd are r equired to install and operate a cyclone to reduce emission s from pelleting and pellet cooling operations. The avera ge daily feed production level means the average amount of p repared feed product produced each operating day over an an nual18

period. The initial determination of the average d aily feed production level is based on the one-year peri od prior to the compliance date for existing sources, or the design rate for new sources. Subsequent average daily fee d 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 whic h the production processes were in operation. Facilities with average daily feed production levels of 50 tpd or l ess are required to submit production information in their Notification of Compliance Status report and keep r ecords documenting their animal feed production levels. For the pelleting operations at facilities with da ily pelleting production levels exceeding 50 tpd, the f inal rule requires that PM emissions be collected and ro uted to a cyclone that is designed to achieve 95 percent or greater reduction in PM. There are three ways you can demo nstrate that your cyclone is designed to achieve 95 percent reduction in PM: (1) manufacturer specifications t hat certifying the cyclone is designed to achieve 95 pe rcent reduction in PM emissions; (2) certification by a professional engineer or responsible official that the cyclone is designed to achieve a 95 or greater perc ent reduction in PM emissions; or (3) a one-time Method 519

performance test to demonstrate that the cyclone ca n achieve a 95 percent or greater reduction in PM emi ssions. In addition, the final rule requires that you establish an operating parameter range that indicat es proper operation of the cyclone and then monitor th is parameter at least once per day. The specific para meters allowed to be monitored are inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage. The rang e that represents proper operation of the cyclone must be provided by the manufacturer, determined as part of the engi neering calculations demonstrating the design efficiency, o r determined based on monitoring conducted during the performance test. The final rule also requires that you maintain the cyclone in accordance with manufacturer specificati ons. 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 t he final regulation is demonstrated through installati on of the required equipment, adherence to the management practices specified in the rule, and keeping the re quired records and submitting the required notifications a nd reports described below.20

To ensure that the cyclone for the pelleting and pellet cooling process is operated properly at faci lities with average daily feed production levels exceeding 50 tpd, the final rule requires that the cyclone be inspect ed quarterly for corrosion, erosion, or any other dama ge that could result in air in-leakage, and that the inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperag e be monitored and recorded daily to ensure that it is b eing operated in accordance with specified proper operat ing

range. The final rule also requires that the devices requi red at the loadout end of a bulk loader to lessen fugit ive 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 r eporting requirements ? All new and existing sources are required to compl y with some requirements of the General Provisions (4 0 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are identified in Table 1 of the final rule. The General Provisions include specifi c requirements for notifications, recordkeeping, and reporting. Each facility is required to submit an Initial Notification and a one-time Notification of Complia nce21

Status according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 in the General Provisions. The Initial Notification, whic h is required to be submitted by affected sources not la ter than [INSERT DATE 120 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or 120 days after you become sub ject to the rule, whichever is later, must contain basic information about the facility and its operations. The Notification of Compliance Status, which is require d to be submitted 120 days after the compliance date, must contain a statement that the source has complied with all r elevant standards. The Notification of Compliance Status a lso must include the inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressu re drop, or fan amperage range that constitutes proper opera tion of the cyclone used to reduce emissions from the pelle ting and pellet cooling operations. Facilities not required to install and operate cyclones on their pelleting ope rations are required to submit documentation of their initi al average daily feed production level. The final rule requires that records be kept of al l notifications of compliance. The rule requires tha t records be kept documenting each inspection of a cy clone and each inspection of a device at the loadout end of a bulk loader. It also requires that the daily readi ng of cyclone inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure d rop, or22

fan amperage be recorded. In addition, records are required of any actions taken in response to findin gs of the inspections or monitoring results outside the p roper operating range. Facilities with average daily fee d 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 complian ce certification, a copy of which will need to be main tained on site. This report must contain a statement of w hether the source has complied with all relevant standards and other requirements of the final rule. If a deviati on from the standard occurred during the annual reporting p eriod, or if an instance occurred where the cyclone inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperag e was outside of the proper operating range submitted in the Notification of Compliance Status report, this info rmation is required to be included in the annual report and the report needs to be submitted to the EPA Administrat or 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 year s, the

first two of which must be onsite.23

V. Summary of Comments and Responses EPA received 16 public comment letters on the prop osed 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 representative s, trade associations, state agencies, and an environmental organization. Sections V.A through V.G of this pre amble provide responses to the public comments received o n the proposed NESHAP. A. Rulemaking Process

Comment : Several commenters requested that the comment period be extended by 90 days. The comment ers had concerns about the inputs to the impacts analysis a nd requested additional time to collect and provide fa ctual 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 Nov ember 16, 2009), we were unable to extend the comment per iod in response to these requests. Moreover, CAA section 307(d) requires that EPA provide a minimum of 30 days for public

1 We denied the requests for extension by letter, co pies of which are in the docket. These letters explain the reasons for the denial. These reasons are also provided in section V.A.24

comment, and we provided that period for public com ment. Furthermore, consistent with section 307(d), the pr oposed rule provided the public an opportunity to request a public hearing, and no party requested such a hearing. Se e 307(d)(5)(record remains open 30 days after the dat e of the public hearing).

Comment: One commenter expressed their concerns about the process that EPA used to develop its proposed n ational emission standard for prepared feeds manufacturers. The commenter believes that EPA did not provide ample d ue process in developing the proposed rule. The comme nter pointed out that they requested a 90-day extension to the proposed rule’s comment period so that accurate inf ormation could be obtained to respond to the assumptions and estimates made by the agency. In this request, the commenter indicated that they highlighted five majo r areas of the proposed rule in which they believed EPA lac ked critical information that directly affects the prov isions within the proposed rule and its impact on prepared feeds manufacturers. Since EPA denied their request for extension of the comment period, the commenter indi cated that they were left with what they believe was an inappropriately short 30-day comment period to resp ond to a proposed rule that, if promulgated as drafted, woul d have25

very significant operational and economic impacts o n prepared feeds manufacturers. While cognizant of E PA’s

court-ordered mandate to issue this national emissi on standard, the commenter believes that the agency’s actions related to gathering industry information, timing o f 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 di scuss our rulemaking process and the information we inten ded to obtain through the 114 survey. EPA strongly disagr ees 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 day s for the public to comment on the proposal, and EPA comp lied with this requirement. EPA also identified a date for public hearing, if such hearing was requested by an y member of the public. No member of the public requested a hearing, and therefore, a public hearing was not he ld. In conclusion, we believe that lines of communicati on with the industry were well established and open th roughout26

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 facilit y is a facility that produces feeds, and not a facility th at manufactures feed ingredients. One of the commente rs explained that although feed ingredient companies m ay predominantly manufacture ingredients for animal fe ed and be classified under the NAICS Code defining the Pre pared 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 prepar ed feeds manufacturing area source category. The category w as identified in the original section 112(k) emissions inventory through the use of the Standard Industria l Classification (SIC) code 2048, Prepared Feeds Manufacturing, except cat and dog feed. As noted b y the commenter, the NAICS code that covers this area sou rce category is 311119, which is equivalent to the SIC code used in the original source category definition. T he27

SIC/NAICS code for the source category includes man y segments of the prepared feed industry, including t he production of feed ingredients. Specifically, in a ddition to many other segments of the industry, NAICS code 311119, and thus the prepared feeds manufacturing area sour ce 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 mak e the change suggested by the commenter. We did, however , make changes to the applicability provisions and definit ions to clarify the various segments of the prepared feeds industry that are included in the source category and, there fore, subject to the rule (provided they use chromium or28

manganese). These changes include adding a definit ion of “animal feed,” which includes a list of all the pro ducts included under NAICS code 311119. While we recogni ze that chromium and manganese are not used in the producti on of many of the animal feed products in the definition, we believe that a complete listing eliminates the conf usion 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 t he rule if no chromium or manganese is used.

One of the commenters raised the issue of a facili ty that produces a product covered by the rule along w ith other similar products that would not be covered by the rule. Specifically, the commenter mentions a facil ity 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. 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 in29

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 manufact uring facility subject to the rule if the animal feed ing redients (not including ingredients for dog, cat, or human f eed) make up more than half of its production. In addit ion, the final rule specifies that an affected source at a p repared feeds manufacturing facility only includes the coll ection of equipment and activities necessary to produce an imal 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 m entioned by the commenters, consideration of these applicabi lity issues, along with comments related to the number o f30

facilities in the source category, caused us to cla rify that prepared feeds manufacturing at farms and anim al feed lots is not part of this source category. Faciliti es “primarily engaged” in raising or feeding animals a re listed under different NAICS codes (e.g., 112210 – Hog and Pig Farming, 112112 – Cattle Feedlots, 112111 – Bee f Cattle Ranching and Farming) and were not part of the sour ces that formed the basis for the listing of the prepared fe ed manufacturing area source category.

Comment : Five commenters stated that the rule should only apply to prepared feeds manufacturing faciliti es that use or emit chromium compounds or manganese compoun ds above a specified threshold. The commenters claimed that such an approach would focus attention on facilities that a re more significant emitters of chromium and manganese and will avoid requiring extremely small facilities to compl y with

the rule with little environmental benefit. The co mmenters suggested several different threshold levels. One

commenter recommended a threshold based on establis hed Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 198 6 ( SARA) Tier II threshold quantities (10,000 pounds per yea r), while another suggested 2,000 pounds per year based on levels determined to be insignificant under the tit le V program. Another commenter noted that Toxics Relea se31

Inventory (TRI) regulations require a covered facil ity to report only if it manufactures or processes non-exe mpt chromium and/or manganese compounds in quantities e xceeding 25,000 pounds per year, and suggested that a thresh old 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 su ch a threshold is established, compounds having a concen tration of less than 1 percent of the chromium compounds or manganese compounds need not be counted by a facili ty when determining whether it has used a sufficient quanti ty to

reach the threshold use level that establishes whet her a facility is subject to the rule’s provisions. Response : Although several commenters advocated for a usage threshold for chromium compounds and manganes e compounds, below which a facility would be exempt, we are not adopting any exemptions. Prepared Feeds Manufa cturing 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 represent ing 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 tha t small sources were not included in the listing decision. As32

such, we do not believe we can satisfy our requirem ent to regulate sources representing 90 percent of the emi ssions 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 sugges tion fails to address the requirement of section 112(c)( 3), and, as discussed above, we previously determined that w e need to subject the Prepared Feeds Manufacturing area so urce category to regulations in order to meet the requir ement that EPA regulate area sources accounting for 90 pe rcent 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 note d 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 tha t the pelleting and pellet cooling process is the most significant source of pollutants, as it is estimate d to33

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 applicabilit y should remain as proposed.

C. Emission Standards

1. General

Comment : One commenter stated that EPA based the proposed standard on erroneous and misguided assump tions and estimates of emissions of chromium compounds an d manganese compounds. This commenter had numerous objections to the impacts analyses (see section V.G ) and how these analyses impacted EPA’s decision to regul ate this category and specific emission points. Response : In section 112(c)(3) of the CAA, EPA is required to list “sufficient categories or subcateg ories of area sources to ensure that area source representin g 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are su bject to regulation.” An area source emissions inventory wa s 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 f eeds manufacturing source category, this inventory was b ased on34

data from the 1990 TRI. The TRI is an EPA inventor y of annual emissions self-reported by industry. Based on this information, EPA determined that chromium compounds emissions and manganese compounds emissions from pr epared feeds manufacturing area sources needed to be regul ated to achieve the 90 percent requirement in CAA section 112(c)(3). Therefore, the decision to regulate emi ssions 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 comment er were prepared to evaluate potential impacts of regulator y options. This information had no bearing on the ba sic decision to develop regulations for the prepared fe eds manufacturing area source category. The commenter is also incorrect with respect to how emission points were identified for regulation. Th ey assume that the information compiled for the impact s analyses was used as the basis to identify emission points for regulation. Rather, chromium and manganese emi ssion points were identified primarily based on informati on submitted directly by the industry. Specifically, we conducted a survey of the industry, and responses w ere received for over 100 prepared feeds manufacturing35

facilities. In the responses to this survey, prepa red feeds manufacturing facilities identified potential emission sources and reported controls and manageme nt practices that were being used. This information f ormed 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). Howe ver, the issues associated with these analyses did not influ ence the basic decision to regulate this source category or the decisions on the specific emission sources that wou ld be regulated.

Comment : One commenter asserted that, “. . . The legislative history of § 112 explains that Congress intended GACT standards to reflect ‘methods, practi ces and techniques which are commercially available and app ropriate for application by sources in the category consider ing economic impacts and technical capabilities of the firms to operate and maintain emission control systems’.” The commenter also asserted that, although EPA use d its discretion to issue GACT standards and that § 1 12(d)(5) authorizes EPA to do so, that decision is subject t o administrative law requirements. The commenter ass erted that EPA’s decision is arbitrary and capricious bec ause36

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 entit led “Alternative standard for area sources,” provides: With respect only to categories and subcategories of area sources listed pursuant to subsection (c) of t his

section , the Administrator may , in lieu of the authorities provided in paragraph (2) and subsectio n (f) of this section, elect to promulgate standards or requirements applicable to sources in such categori es or subcategories which provide for the use of generally available control technologies or managem ent 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 on ly 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 no ted above pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3). Second, C AA37

section 112(d)(5) provides that, for area sources l isted pursuant to CAA section 112(c), EPA “may, in lieu o f ” the authorities provided in CAA section 112(d)(2) and 1 12(f), elect to promulgate standards pursuant to CAA secti on 112(d)(5). CAA Section 112(d)(2) provides that emi ssion standards established under that provision “require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions” of HAP (a lso known as maximum achievable control technology or M ACT). CAA section 112(d)(3), in turn, defines what consti tutes 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 stan dards under CAA section 112(d)(5) that provide for the us e of GACT, instead of issuing MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3). The statute does not set any

2 Specifically, CAA section 112(d)(3) sets the minim um degree of emission reduction that MACT standards must achieve , which is known as the MACT floor. For new sources, the degree of emis sion reduction shall not be less stringent than the emission control tha t 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 th e best performing 12 percent of the existing sources for which the Admin istrator has emissions information. CAA Section 112(d)(2) direct s EPA to consider whether more stringent emission reductions (so call ed beyond-the-floor limits) are technologically achievable considering, among other things, the cost of achieving the emission reduction.38

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 pu rsuant to CAA section 112(c), which is the case here. 3 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 r equire EPA to conduct any MACT analysis, floor analysis or beyondthe-floor analysis before the Agency could issue a section 112(d)(5) standard. Rather, Congress authorized EP A to issue GACT standards for area source categories lis ted under section 112(c), and that is precisely what EP A 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 propo sal that being able to consider costs and economic impacts i s important when establishing standards for a categor y like

3 CAA Section 112(d)(5) also references CAA section 112(f). See CAA section 112(f)(5) (entitled “Area Sources” and prov iding that EPA is not required to conduct a review or promulgate stan dards under CAA section 112(f) for any area source category or subc ategory listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3), and for which an emission standard is issued pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5)).39

this with many small sources. Furthermore, EPA mus t set a GACT standard that is consistent with the requireme nts of CAA section 112(d)(5) and have a reasoned basis for its GACT determination. As explained in the proposed r ule 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 applicat ion 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 provide s that EPA may consider costs in determining what constitu tes GACT for the area source category. Congress plainly rec ognized that area sources differ from major sources, which is why Congress allowed EPA to consider costs in setting G ACT 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 s ection 112(d)(5) provides further evidence that Congress s ought to do precisely what the title of section 112(d)(5) st ates, i.e., provide EPA the authority to issue ”alternati ve

standards for area sources.”40

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 provi ded a

reasoned basis for its selection of GACT for these area source categories. As explained in the proposed ru le, EPA evaluated the control technologies and management p ractices that reduce HAP emissions at Prepared Feeds Manufac turing area source facilities. In its evaluation, EPA use d information on pollution prevention from industry t rade associations, and reviewed operating permits to ide ntify the emission controls and management practices that are currently used to control volatile and particulate HAP emissions. We also considered technologies and pra ctices 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 pro posed rule. In the proposal, we explained that the facili ties in the source categories at issue are already well con trolled for the urban HAP for which the source category was listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3). Consideration of cos ts and economic impacts proves especially important for th e wellcontrolled area sources at issue in this final acti on. Given the current, well controlled emission levels, a MACT floor determination, where costs cannot be consider ed,41

could result in only marginal reductions in emissio ns 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 reco rd for this rulemaking, that Prepared Feed Manufacturing facilities often generate emissions other than mang anese, such as arsenic and arsenic compounds, benzene, ber yllium and beryllium compounds, cadmium and cadmium compou nds, chlorine, cobalt and cobalt compounds, formaldehyde , hexane, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen fluoride, lead and lead compounds, mercury and mercury compounds, naphthale ne, nickel and nickel compounds, polycyclic organic mat ter, selenium and selenium compounds, and toluene. The commenter acknowledged that management practices an d PM controls required by the rule will likely reduce ot her metal HAP emissions to some degree; however they in dicated that the Agency failed to quantify this benefit. T he

commenter also indicated that EPA should consider c ontrols

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 s ources42

that pose the greatest threat to public health in t he 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 s ection 112(c)(3). Section 112(c)(3), in relevant part, pr ovides: The Administrator shall . . ., pursuant to subsecti on (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 representi ng 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 ur ban areas are subject to regulation under this section. Thus, section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list suffic ient categories or subcategories of area sources to ensu re that area sources representing 90 percent of the area so urce emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to regula tion. Section 112(d)(1) requires the Administrator to pro mulgate regulations establishing emissions standards for ea ch area source category of HAP listed for regulation pursua nt to section 112(c). EPA identified the 30 Urban HAP that posed the greatest threat to public health in the Integrated Urban43

Air Toxics Strategy (Strategy). In the Strategy an d 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 Manufacturi ng area source category. We have interpreted sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B) together to require EPA to regulate on ly those Urban HAP emissions for which an area source catego ry is listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3), not all urban HAP or all section 112(b) HAP emitted from a listed area s ource category. As stated above, section 112(k)(3)(B) ad dresses the strategy to control HAP from area sources in ur ban areas and the focus of the strategy as it relates t o control of area sources is on the 30 HAP that pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest num ber of urban areas. Section 112(c)(3) specifically refere nces section 112(k)(3)(B) as the basis for selecting are a sources for listing to satisfy the Agency’s respons ibility for regulating urban HAP emissions from area source s. Under these provisions, area sources categories are listed because they emit one or more of the 30 listed Urba n HAP and the Agency has identified the category as one t hat is necessary to satisfy the requirement to subject are a44

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 a nd manganese emissions from the Prepared Feeds Manufac turing area source category, as these are the urban HAP em issions for which the category was listed to meet the 90 pe rcent requirement in sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B). Se e 112(c)(3) (EPA must “ensure that area sources repre senting 90 percent of the area source emissions of the 30 h azardous air pollutants . . . are subject to regulation.”). We recognize that the source category emits other sect ion 112(b) HAP, including other urban HAP; however, as stated above, sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B) do not r equire 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 t hese urban HAP and subjecting those area source categori es 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.45

While the Agency is not required to regulate all section 112(b) HAP from area sources listed pursuan t to section 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B), section 112 of the CAA does not preclude EPA from regulating other HAP fro m 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) “MA CT” standards, promulgate standards or requirements “ap plicable to sources” which provide for the use of GACT or ma nagement practices “to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.” This provision does not limit EPA’s a uthority to regulate only those urban HAP emissions for whic h the category is needed to achieve the 90 percent requir ement in sections 112(k)(3)(B) and 112(c)(3). In fact, in t wo other area source rules, in addition to regulating the ur ban HAP that were necessary to satisfy the 90 percent requi rement in sections 112(k)(3)(B) and 112(c)(3), we regulate d additional section 112(b) HAP. Specifically, in th e chemical manufacturing area source rule and the pai nt and allied products area source rule, although not requ ired, we exercised our discretion to regulate other section 112(b) HAP beyond the urban HAP for which the categories w ere listed under section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), inclu ding46

non-urban section 112(b) HAP. The chemical manufact uring area source rule and the paints and allied products area source rule both involve specific circumstances whi ch EPA believes justify regulating organic and metal secti on 112(b) HAP in addition to the specific urban HAP ne eded to meet the 90 percent requirement in section 112(c)(3 ) and (k)(3)(B), which served as the basis for the listin g of the categories. In the chemical manufacturing area sou rce rule, which establishes standards for 9 area source categories, we regulated such HAP because the emiss ion standards designed to control the urban HAP for whi ch the categories were listed were equally effective at re moving other urban and non-urban metal and organic HAP, an d demonstrating compliance for total HAP was less bur densome 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 e mission standards for HAP beyond the urban HAP for which th e 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 appropriatel y exercised our discretion in regulating only the chr omium and manganese emissions from the prepared feeds47

manufacturing area source category. Therefore, we did not make any changes in the final rule based on this co mment. 2. Housekeeping Management Practices

Comment : One commenter claimed that the Agency’s proposed housekeeping practices are “overreaching,” “unfounded,” and “unnecessary.” The commenter beli eved that EPA had no basis for correlating housekeeping practices with ambient air concentrations of chromi um compounds or manganese compounds. The commenter also had concerns with regard to two of the specific plant-wide housekeeping requirements p roposed. The commenter argued that the requirement that dust be removed from walls, ledges and equipment at least o nce per month is not performance-orientated and fails to co nsider individual facility operations or existing manageme nt practices. The commenter also disagreed with the A gency’s assertion that air flow through open doors ‘stirs-u p’ dust and causes chromium compounds and manganese compoun ds to be emitted into the atmosphere. Therefore, the commen ter opposed the proposed requirement that affected faci lities keep doors shut, as practicable. In addition, the commenter also expressed concern over the facilitie s ability to comply with this requirement as they que stioned48

what would be the parameters set/used to determine that having a door shut is not practicable. The commenter noted that prepared feeds manufacturi ng facilities already comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Grain Handling Stand ard (29 CFR 1910.272) and the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs ) for

Medicated Feeds (21 CFR 225) , and that they are regularly inspected by federal and state authorities. Becaus e of this, the commenter believed that EPA’s proposed housekeeping practices are unnecessary. The commen ter provided more detailed descriptions of these two pr ograms. 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 most49

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’shousekeeping standard also is performanceorientated. 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 ma intain a management plan to minimize excess dust. The comme nter50

said that this plan can be maintained on site, avai lable 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 th e 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 requi res EPA to list sufficient categories or subcategories of a rea sources to ensure that there are sources representi ng 90 percent of the emissions of each of the 30 urban HA P are subject to regulation. We determined that the chro mium and manganese emissions from prepared feeds manufacturi ng area sources need to be subject to regulation to meet th is 90 percent requirement for these two HAP. Additionall y, under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate s tandards that represent GACT. As cited above, the legislati ve 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 technical51

capabilities of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.” Section 112(d)(5) calls for EPA to establish GACT s tandards that are designed to reduce HAP emissions. Nothing in these provisions requires EPA to justify GACT regul ations

based on a correlation between ambient concentratio ns 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 availab le information, we concluded that every prepared feeds manufacturing facility performed general housekeepi ng practices and maintained equipment in an effort to reduce dust and thus, particulate emissions. We appreciat e the information provided by the commenter that confirms this conclusion, along with the details of the regulator y programs that require these measures. We disagree with the commenter that including GACT housekeeping practices is unnecessary. As noted ab ove, section 112(d)(5) requires EPA to establish nationa l

standards. The fact that OSHA and FDA have similar requirements has no relevance here, especially sinc e they allow facilities to establish individual (and poten tially dissimilar) standards. Therefore, the final rule m aintains52

specific housekeeping requirements to minimize dust and does not include a requirement to develop site-spec ific management practices. As noted above, we had information prior to proposa l that made it clear that housekeeping practices to m inimize dust were widespread. We concluded that GACT was “continual housekeeping practices to reduce dust th at can contain chromium compounds 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 speci fic practices employed in the industry, and included th em in the proposed rule. At proposal, we acknowledged th e potential limitations of the examples of practices proposed, and specifically requested comment on the se measures. We also requested additional general man agement 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 n ot provide any suggestions to address their concerns ( other than the suggestion to remove the practices entirel y), we53

recognize the issues raised in the comments provide d on the specific management practices and have considered t hem. The commenter stated that the requirement that dust be removed from walls, ledges and equipment at least o nce per month is not performance-orientated and fails to co nsider individual facility operations or existing manageme nt practices. It is clear that all prepared feeds manufacturing facilities must remove dust from wall s, ledges, and equipment periodically in order to comp ly with the OSHA requirement. The commenter did not provid e any alternative to the monthly requirement, and our fol low-up calls to feed manufacturing facilities indicated th at 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 t he result of a recommendation from a prepared feeds manufacturer. However, we appreciate the concerns regarding potential compliance confusion with the p roposed requirement to keep doors closed “as practicable.” Therefore, the final rule states that doors must re main closed “except during normal ingress and egress.”54

Comment : One commenter expressed concern that the general housekeeping requirements would apply to al l areas of the affected facility, even though all areas of the affected facility may not be involved with the stor age and/or use of chromium compounds or manganese compo unds. Response : We agree with the commenter that there is no need to perform these management practices in ar eas where chromium or manganese are never present. The refore, 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 c hromium 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 ma nganese compounds are added at all times when mixing is occ urring, except when the materials are being added to the mi xer. The commenter suggested that this requirement impli es that chromium compounds or manganese compounds are being emitted into the atmosphere directly from the mixer when mi xing 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 the55

facility in which the mixer is operating and not di rectly released to the atmosphere. The commenter explaine d that

the facilities themselves are control devices. The

commenter claimed that there was a lack of sufficie nt and compelling data to support a contention that openin gs in mixers are a source of emissions of chromium compou nds or manganese compounds. The commenter believed that t he technical background information considered by EPA in this rulemaking produced an unfounded correlation betwee n mixer operation and chromium and manganese emissions. Th e commenter cited EPA’s 2002 National Emissions Inven tory (NEI) and noted that the data reviewed indicated no emissions of chromium compounds or manganese compou nds from source classification codes 31227 through 31237, wh ich encompass mixing/blending operations at feed manufa cturers. Response : The commenter stated that when chromium compounds or manganese compounds are released from the mixer they are not emitted to the atmosphere becaus e the

facilities themselves are control devices. We do n ot 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 informatio n for mixing in response to our industry survey, over 60 percent indicated that their processes are “closed” without direct56

vents to the atmosphere. However, the general vent ilationof the building can allow chromium- and manganesecontaining dust from the building to be emitted. C hromium and manganese dust created in the mixer that accumu lates in the building could be emitted. Therefore, any meas ures to reduce the amount of dust in the building impacts emissions. We believe that the proposed measures t o reduce dust generation from mixing will result in lower du st levels and, thus, lower emissions.

The commenter further claimed that there was no evidence that openings in mixers are a source of em issions of chromium compounds or manganese compounds, and t hat the technical background information considered by EPA in this rulemaking produced an unfounded correlation betwee n mixer operation and chromium and manganese emissions. Ho wever, we identified mixers as a source of emissions due t o information submitted directly by the industry. Specifically, prepared feeds manufacturing faciliti es identified mixing as a potential emission source an d reported associated add-on control devices and mana gement practices in response to our industry survey. We r eviewed the material submitted via this survey and agree th at it is accurate and representative.57

Since some prepared feeds manufacturing facilities reported that emissions from mixing were vented to a control device, we evaluated whether add-on control s were GACT for mixing operations. The commenter is corre ct that no emissions were assigned directly to mixing in th e 2002 NEI. However, we would note that over 60 percent o f the manganese emissions in the 2002 NEI, and 90 percent of the chromium emissions, were not assigned to any specif ic operation, thus raising the possibility that some o f 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 estima te emissions from mixing. While the commenter may dis agree with the assumptions that were used to estimate the se emissions, the result was the rejection of add-on c ontrol as GACT for mixing. To reiterate, the emission estimates that the commenter objects to were not a factor in establish ing the proposed management practices as GACT. That determ ination was directly based on the information submitted in response to the survey. In conclusion, the commenter provided no informatio n to suggest that the proposed measures were not gene rally58

available and commonly used by the facilities to re duce chromium- or manganese-containing dust from mixing operations at prepared feeds manufacturing faciliti es. 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 w ere 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 fac ilities that produce less than 50 tpd of prepared feeds. T he commenter points out that EPA determined that appro ximately 20 percent of existing facilities already had cyclo nes installed, and that the agency estimated that the c ost 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 t on of PM2.5 reduction, and that the annual cost of instal ling and operating a cyclone at one of these facilities woul d be around $58,000 per year. The commenter recognizes that EPA performed an economic impact assessment, which indi cated that these annual costs could represent over 5 perc ent of the total annual sales for a small facility, and th at EPA59

concluded that “the adverse economic impacts do not justify a determination requiring cyclones for the small pr epared feeds manufacturing subcategory.” The commenter st ates that, although this economic impact analysis is mor e instructive than mere reliance on cost effectivenes s figures, the 5 percent of total annual sales thresh old 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 ju stify

the costs of the controls. The commenter stated th eir belief that the GACT provision’s requirement of cos t considerations does not preclude the need to consid er the environmental benefits of the proposed rule in dete rmining 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 represen t over 5 percent of the total annual sales for a facility wi th less than 5 employees. We strongly disagree that a deci sion to reject controls that would result in costs that rep resent 5 percent of the total annual sales is arbitrary. Th is 5 percent value was a direct calculation of the sma ll model plant cyclone costs divided by the average shipment s per60

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 potentiall y economically damaging. Further, since we believe a ll 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 emissi on reductions of chromium, manganese, PM, and PM2.5. However,

we determined that these emission reductions are no t justified given the economic impacts. In conclusio n, we believe our decision to reject the option to requir e 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 mus t be controlled from the pelleting and pellet cooling operations, this level should be related to the amo unt of feed pelletized and not the total amount of feed pr oduced by the entire facility. One of the commenters indi cated that they are aware of several prepared feeds manuf acturing61

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 wi thin a source category or subcategory in establishing such standards”. As discussed at proposal (74 FR 36985) , we observed differences between prepared feeds manufac turing facilities based on production levels and subcatego rized the Prepared Feeds Manufacturing source category in to “small” and “large” facilities. The threshold used to distinguish between these subcategories was an aver age feed production level of 50 tpd. We then independently determined GACT standards for each subcategory. Th erefore, our subcategorization and GACT determinations were based on the separation of facilities according to total fee d production levels, not pelleting feed production. Since the change suggested by the commenter is inconsiste nt with our subcategorization decision and analyses, we ret ained 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 le vel in a calendar year or a rolling 12-month production leve l. The62

commenter points out that an annual production leve l 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 no t appear to have any special significance, as it was calcula ted as an average of annual production. The commenter bel ieved that an annual production rate would achieve the sa me objectives and would be easier than a daily product ion rate for facilities and for regulatory agencies to track

. Response : We did not incorporate the commenters’ suggestion to change the threshold to an annual bas is. In our determination of GACT, the data on the existenc e 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 opera tion per year. We do not believe that calculating an annual rate based on a “typical” production schedule is reflect ive of varying production schedules that exist in the indu stry. Therefore, the final rule maintains the daily produ ction level concept. Requiring owners and operators to m aintain annual production data and the number of operating days, and then dividing the annual production by the numb er of operating days is no more difficult or burdensome f or63

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 de sign efficiency of 95 percent for PM10. The commenters believed that this level of efficiency would not be attainab le under the conditions of the pelleting process. One comme nter suggested the efficiency requirement be changed to 95 percent for total PM (up to 35 micron). The commen ter included a chart from a cyclone manufacturer that s howed the efficiency in removal of PM10 by a cyclone esti mated at 90 percent. The commenter continued that this leve l 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 device such as a baghouse or a wet scrubber would be necessary to reach a capture efficiency of 95 pe rcent

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 mangan ese. We did not specify GACT as a specific control efficien cy, concentration, or operating parameter. However, in order to establish criteria that represent a properly des igned,64

operated, and maintained control device, it was nec essary to establish requirements in the proposed rule on h ow the cyclone is designed and operated. Many respondents to the industry survey stated they use high efficiency cyc lones to control the pelleting operations. The result is re duced emissions to the air and the capture of lost produc t that can be returned to the manufacturing operation. As a follow up to the industry survey responses, we contacted an industry representative (Docket No. EP A-HQOAR-2008-0080-0010) that responded to our survey fo r several prepared feeds manufacturing facilities and asked about the level of efficiency that would be expecte d with high efficiency cyclones reported to be used to con trol the pelleting process. The representatives indicated t hat today’s high efficiency cyclones can be expected to get 99 percent control of particulates, while older one s can be expected to achieve efficiencies in the “mid 90 per cent” range. While background material gathered prior to proposal from vendors (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0 080- 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 pro cess are not optimum. We contacted additional cyclone manuf acturers after proposal, and some agreed with the commenters that65

cyclones designed to achieve 95 percent efficiency level for PM10 for pelleting operations are not available . All of those contacted indicated that many older cyclon es still being used in the industry would not meet the propo sed 95 percent PM10 design requirement. It was not our in tent to force prepared feeds manufacturers to replace older , well designed and properly operating cyclones with new h igh efficiency cyclones, particularly since the increme ntal 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 avail able information suggests that a 95 percent efficiency d esign 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 f or total PM, rather than for PM10.

Comment : A commenter recommended that the final rule provide explicit compliance alternatives to the req uirement to operate a 95 percent control efficient cyclone. The commenter cites that other area source NESHAP, such as the Nonferrous Foundry NESHAP (Subpart ZZZZZZ), establi sh a limit of either 99.0 percent control for PM or an e mission limit of 0.01 grains per dry standard cubic foot (g r/dscf). The commenter is concerned that having 95 percent c ontrol66

efficient cyclone as the only compliance option for pelletizing operations would unfairly penalize a fa cility that has a pelletizing process with low uncontrolle d emissions or a facility that uses other control equ ipment

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 per cent. The format of the rule is an equipment standard, an d the 95 percent criterion is a design value, not an emis sion limitation. Therefore, there is no penalty for a f acility with low uncontrolled emissions, provided that they have a cyclone designed to achieve 95 percent reduction th at is operated and maintained properly.

Comment : A commenter requested clarification of whether PM or PM10 emissions is considered a surrog ate for HAP emission in the proposed rule. The commenter n otes that the proposed rule requires that pelletizing op erations at feed preparation facilities with daily productio n levels greater than 50 tpd be controlled by a cyclone desi gned 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 commente r asked67

whether PM or PM10 is the surrogate pollutant for t he proposed rule. The commenter points out that sever al other area source NESHAP consider PM to be the surrogate pollutant for HAP emissions such as Subpart ZZZZZZ (Aluminum, Copper, Nonferrous Foundries) and Subpar t ZZZZZ (Iron and Steel Foundries). The commenter recommen ds 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 recomm ends that, if EPA elects to use PM10 as the surrogate, E PA evaluate the required control efficiency for the cy clone control equipment. Response : As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, PM is the surrogate for chromium and manganes e 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 preparati on facility with a daily production level of greater t han 5068

tpd to keep a record from the cyclone’s manufacture r 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 com pliance with the control efficiency? The commenter also as ked whether an owner or operator would have the option of demonstrating compliance with the rule by testing t he inlet/outlet concentrations of the cyclone for dete rmining the control efficiency. Finally, the commenter ask ed 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 allow ed 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 r ule if the cyclone manufacturer’s design control efficienc y and operating and maintenance procedures are not availa ble. 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. Th e first option is to obtain certification from the manufact urer, as proposed. Under Option 2, the owner or operator co uld have a registered professional engineer or responsible o fficial69

certify that the cyclone is designed in a manner ca pable of achieving 95 percent or greater PM reduction and ke ep a record of the information used to make this determi nation. The third option is to conduct PM testing at the in let and outlet of the cyclone(s) to demonstrate that an eff iciency of 95 percent or greater PM reduction is actually b eing achieved. If either the certification or testing o ption is used, the owner or operator would be required to id entify a parameter (inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressur e drop, or fan amperage) operating range that constitutes p roper 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 red uced through the use of drop filter socks. Two of the commenters believe that this is too costly and shou ld not be considered as GACT. One of the commenters expla ined that, in order to meet the proposed requirements, o ne of their facilities would need to redesign and purchas e equipment for the entire bin and bin loading system and potentially redesign the entire mill, which could c ost

hundreds of thousands of dollars. Two commenters d isagreed with EPA’s claim that every facility uses drop filt er socks70

to reduce dust and the loss of product during the l oading of railcars and trucks. One of the commenters argu ed that EPA’s conclusion that every affected facility alrea dy uses drop filter socks to reduce dust and the loss of pr oduct during the loading of railcars and trucks contradic ts the background technical information in the docket, whi ch indicates that the use of drop filter socks was rep orted 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 1 4.3 per facility

2. Only 53 percent of the responding industry faciliti es 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 fil ter 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 approximatel y 6,30071

affected facilities, the cost to install drop filte r socks at loading discharge points would be $12.5 million for the entire industry, with an annual cost of $9.1 millio n per year. The commenter notes the stark contrast in th ese estimates and EPA’s claim that the proposed require ment to install drop filter socks would not create addition al

associated costs for facilities. Three of the commenters point out other alternative methods that are equally effective in reducing emis sions and should be allowed. One commenter explained tha t many facilities have discharge-loading points that alrea dy are designed to limit the distance between the feed-dis charge point and the conveyance, thereby minimizing potent ial 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 dro p 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 f inal

rule. Response : At proposal, we determined that filter drop socks (or drop filter socks, as we inadvertently us ed the terms interchangeably) represented GACT for bulk lo ading. As evident in the definition of “filter drop sock,” we72

intended that this term represent any “device at th e loadout end of a bulk loader that lessens fugitive emissions by containing the unloaded product within the device thus preventing windblown and drop caused fu gitive emissions.” We are confident in our assumption tha t every prepared feeds manufacturing facility uses some dev ice that meets the proposed broad definition of filter drop sock. However, these comments make it apparent that the i ndustry recognizes one specific technology as filter drop s ocks, or drop socks, and that it would not be accurate to as sume that every facility utilizes this technology. Ther efore, in order to avoid confusion, we have removed the de finition of filter drop sock and revised the standard to req uire that, for the bulk loading process where prepared f eeds products containing chromium or manganese are loade d into trucks or railcars, a device must be used at the lo adout end of each bulk loader to lessen fugitive emission s. Examples of these devices include drop socks, flexi ble spouts, and any device that reduces the distance be tween the loading arm and the truck or railcar to a degre e 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 app lies to73

all bulk loaders that load products containing chro mium 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 o f installing and operating those controls. The comme nter explained that the Agency’s decision was made despi te the widespread use of these controls, as around 30 perc ent of the smaller facilities and over 90 percent of the l arger facilities controlled emissions from bagging. The commenter points out that EPA did not disagree or r eject the notion that control options are appropriate or that the economic impacts are too great. Rather, the commen ter points out that the decision to reject the option w as based solely on the cost-effectiveness, and that no econo mic analysis was performed. The commenter indicated th at basing this GACT decision solely on cost effectiven ess 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 appl ication74

by the sources in the category considering economic impacts.’ 74 Fed. Reg. 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 m easure to consider in the evaluation of GACT, and that con sidering

cost effectiveness is not unlawful. We believe tha t by rejecting add-on controls for bagging operations be cause the cost effectiveness was “too high to be consider ed GACT,” clearly indicates that we concluded the econ omic impacts are too great. In the preamble to the prop osed 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 ove r $16 million per year for the total annual costs, result ing in

cost effectiveness estimates for these controls of around $255 million per ton of chromium and manganese redu ction, over $750,000 per ton of PM emission reduction, and $3.3 million per ton of PM2.5 reduction. For the facili ties with daily production levels greater than 50 tpd, t he estimates were over $10 million for the total capit al costs and over $13 million per year for the total annual costs, resulting in cost effectiveness estimates of around $3775

million per ton of chromium and manganese reduction , over $100,000 per ton of PM emission reduction, and arou nd $500,000 per ton of PM2.5 reduction. Therefore, no changes

were made as a result of this comment. D. Inspections and Compliance Provisions

Comment : Two commenters stated that monitoring pressure drop would not be the best way to ensure t he proper functioning of the pelleting cyclones. The commenters noted that, due to high moisture conditi ons (always near dew point) of the dust laden air passi ng through the cyclones on the pellet cooler air syste m, accurately measuring the pressure drop is problemat ic. The commenters stated that moisture and particulates in the duct (especially those “upstream” of the collectors ) will constantly compromise the accuracy of the static pr essure indicating equipment. Secondly, the commenters sta te that the collectors are quite inaccessible and would req uire remote readouts, which add to the cost and maintena nce of this equipment. One commenter believed the best wa y to ensure the proper functioning of their collectors i s to simply monitor the amp-load of the fan. The commen ter states that if the amp-load on the fan motor stays within the proper range then the system is functioning pro perly. The commenter also stated that, in their operation, the76

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 discha rged from the fan has passed through the collectors. Th e commenter stated that, additionally, the fans on th eir cooler air systems are electrically interlocked wit h 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 oper ating 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 mon itor cyclone pressure drop would be extremely high. Acc ording to the commenter, given the limited time provided b y EPA to respond to this proposed requirement, they were una ble to receive actual price quotes from vendors on the cos t to install a pressure-drop gauge on a cyclone at vario us types of facilities. The commenter anticipated that such prices could vary depending upon a facility’s equipment an d physical layout. However, according to the comment er, based upon best estimates from vendors, they believ ed that an average conservative cost to install a pressure- drop gauge is $1,500 to $2,000 per cyclone. This commen ter77

suggested that the rule be revised to include alter native management practices and equipment controls as foll ows: 1. Pellet cooling cyclones are to be operated inaccordance with the parameters authorized by airoperating 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 perm it, 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 ar e operating properly. Cyclones are relatively simple devices78

and generally have no moving parts. A cyclone uses an induced draft fan to move the gas stream through th e device. These fans are sized to provide the maximu m inlet velocity possible for high separation without exces sive turbulence. The primary indicators of the performa nce of cyclones are the outlet opacity and inlet velocity. The commenter suggested the use of outlet opacity to monitor performance; however, monitoring outlet opa city would require that trained off-site contractors be used, or more likely, that individuals at the plant be train ed and certified in determining opacity using Method 9. W e have estimated that a single Method 9 test by an off-sit e contractor costs around $2,000. While the costs to train and certify on-site employees to perform these requ ired daily tests would result in costs less than $2,000 per day, we still believe that the cost of using outlet opac ity as an indicator of performance would be too high. The refore, we elected to require monitoring which provides an indication of inlet velocity. Pressure drop across the cyclone is a surrogate for inlet velocity, and, con trary to the commenters’ claims, it is an appropriate measur e to indicate proper operation of a cyclone. Many cyclo ne manufacturers link the design efficiency with a spe cific pressure drop. However, other parameters are appro priate79

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 mon itoring equipment. One of the commenters suggested that cyclones be operated in accordance with parameters authorized b y operating permits issued by appropriate legal autho rities. 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 stan dards, EPA develops monitoring, recordkeeping and reportin g 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 require ments of

title V is that this rule contains sufficient monit oring,80

recordkeeping and reporting requirements to assure compliance with the requirements of the final rule. Thus, section 112 contemplates not only that EPA will est ablish national emission standards, but that EPA will esta blish appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements to assure compliance with those requir ements. Furthermore, the monitoring and other compliance pr ovisions in State permits can vary considerably, and some pr epared feeds manufacturing facilities may not even have pe rmits.

If a source would like to use an alternative monito ring approach allowed by a state permit, it should follo w the requirements of 40 CFR 63.8(f). Therefore, we reje ct the commenter’s suggestion to remove any specific monit oring requirements from the rule.

Comment : Two commenters expressed concern over the frequency of record keeping for the pelleting contr ol devices. One of these commenters suggested that we ekly, rather than daily, pressure drop readings would be adequate. This commenter stated that, while a mont hly maintenance check on the cyclone is a reasonable requirement, daily pressure drop readings are exces sive because the pressure drop readings would not be exp ected to vary widely. The commenter also noted that many cy clones are installed in areas that are not easily accessib le so81

daily checks can be time consuming to collect data that they describe as a “maintenance indicator.” The ot her 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 th e proposed requirement for a cyclone). Response : We proposed using the maintenance indicator of pressure drop in order to ensure that the cyclon es are operating correctly as an indicator of compliance w ith 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, pres sure drop, or fan amperage. By providing multiple optio ns to indicate compliance, we believe the facility will f ind an option that can be completed from an accessible are a. Daily readings of these parameters are considered appropriate because, while a cyclone may be a rathe r 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 i n order to maximize the collection efficiency. We believe that daily checks are necessary to ensure the ductwork i s not entraining outside air and/or that the fan is opera ting in82

the designed manner. As a result, we have not chan ged the requirement for daily monitoring and recording of c yclone performance measures.

Comment : A commenter also asked that the rule specify which cyclone is expected to have a pressure drop g auge installed in cases where multiple cyclones are inst alled in a line. Specifically, would pressure drop monitori ng be required for the initial cyclone, subsequent cyclon es, or all cyclones? Response : The answer is dependent on the design reduction efficiency of the cyclones. If one cyclo ne in a series is designed to achieve 95 percent or greater PM removal, then monitoring would only be necessary fo r that one device. However, if the design efficiencies fo r all the individual cyclones in the series are less than 95 percent, but the combined design efficiency is 95 p ercent or greater, then the inlet flow rate, inlet velocit y, 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 specif y that the pressure drop must be monitored at least once p er day when the cyclone is in operation

.83

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 p rocess is in operation.

E. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

Comment : One commenter stated that §63.11619(e)(1) of the proposed rule indicated that facilities that do not add any materials containing chromium or manganese comp ounds are not subject to the rule. The commenter interpr eted

this to mean that facilities that do not use chromi um- or manganese-containing materials would be excluded fr om all aspects of the NESHAP, including the requirement to submit an Initial Notification. However, the commenter no ted that, during the August 4, 2009 webinar (Docket Ite m No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080-44), it was suggested that the se facilities would be required to submit an initial

notification. The commenter indicated that it seem s unnecessary to require submittal of initial notific ation from facilities that do not use chromium or mangane se compounds, and requested that EPA clarify whether t his report is required of these facilities.84

Response : The commenter’s interpretation is correct. Facilities that do not add any materials containing chromium or manganese to any product manufactured a t 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 certific ation report be omitted from the final rule. The comment er said that annual reporting is burdensome and difficult f or small businesses to do year after year. The commenter be lieves that annual reporting creates excessive paperwork f or the facility and the delegated authority with little

environmental benefit. The commenter also recommen ded that the monthly record certifying that a facility has c omplied 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 re port only needs to indicate that compliance has been ach ieved. In the event that a noncompliance event has occurre d, this report will need to provide information about this event. We believe it is important that there is clear accountability regarding compliance with the regula tion, and we believe that this is best accomplished by ha ving a85

responsible official certify that the facility has complied with the requirements in the rule. We disagree wi th the commenter that this once per year report is difficu lt and overly burdensome. Therefore, the final rule has r etained the requirement to submit annual certification repo rts. However, we considered the commenter’s request regarding the monthly certifications and have deter mined that they are not necessary. We believe that accountability can be maintained via the annual certifications and required records. Therefore, th e proposed requirement to keep a monthly record certi fying compliance with the management practices was not ma intained

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 le vel that determines whether controls are required for emissi ons from the pelleting and pellet cooling operation. The co mmenter also noted that the rule did not explain what happe ns when a facility with a daily production level less than 50 tpd increases production such that they would have a da ily production level greater than 50 tpd. The commente r recommended that provisions be added to eliminate t hese

deficiencies.86

Response : We agree with the commenter, and added recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the average daily feed production level. We also clari fied how this level is to be determined. The final rule spe cifies that the initial determination of the average daily feed production level is based on the one year period pr ior to the compliance date for existing sources, or the de sign rate for new sources. The final rule also requires that facilities with average daily feed production level s below 50 tpd report their initial average daily feed prod uction level in their Notification of Compliance Status re port. These facilities would be required to maintain aver age daily feed production level records to demonstrate that they do not exceed the 50 tpd threshold in the futu re. At the end of each calendar year, the facility will be required to re-calculate the average daily feed pro duction level for the previous year. If the average daily feed production level exceeds 50 tpd, the facility would have to comply with the requirement to collect emissions fr om the pelleting and pellet cooling operations and route t hem to a cyclone by July 1 of that year. Prepared feed mill owners or operators with averag e daily feed production levels less than 50 tpd that elect to comply with the requirement to collect emissions fr om the87

pelleting and pellet cooling operations and route t he emissions to a cyclone would not be required to mai ntain production records.

F. Definitions

Comment : Three commenters suggested that the EPA establish definitions for chromium compounds and ma nganese compounds. One of the commenters suggested using c riteria consistent with that found within the Agency’s TRI reporting requirements, and noted that these regula tions state that: (1) chromium compounds and manganese co mpounds are exempt from the TRI reporting requirements when the concentration of such chemicals is less than 1 perc ent of the total compound; and (2) such an exemption appli es whether the facility received or produced the compo und. One of the other commenters pointed out that, in ot her 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 t han 1.0 percent by weight. The commenter cited the definit ion of "Material containing MFHAP" in §63.1522 (40 CFR Par t 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 united88

chemically in definite proportions by mass. Theref ore, any chemical compound containing the element chromium w ould be a “chromium compound.” For example, chromic oxide, chromium trioxide, and potassium chromate are all c hromium compounds. Similarly, any compound containing the element manganese is a “manganese compound.” Manganese dio xide and manganese chloride are examples of manganese compou nds. In the CAA, “chromium compounds” and “manganese compou nds” two of the 30 Urban HAP. See Integrated Air Toxics Str ategy; see also CAA 112(b). Therefore, any chemical compou nd 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 addi tion of definitions of “a material containing chromium” and “a material containing manganese” are appropriate. As we have pointed out in several other area source rulemaking s, the CAA section 112(k) inventory was primarily based on the 1990 TRI, and that is the case for the Prepared Fee ds Manufacturing source category as well. The reportin g requirements for the TRI do not include de minimis concentrations of toxic chemicals in mixtures; ther efore, the CAA section 112(k) inventory would not have inc luded emissions from operations involving chemicals below these89

concentration levels. See 40 CFR 372.38, Toxic Chem ical Release Reporting: Community Right-To-Know (Reporti ng Requirements). Accordingly, the percentages noted a bove define the scope of the listed source category; the y are not exemptions. Therefore, we believe that it is also appropriate t o incorporate this into the prepared feeds manufactur ing area source NESHAP. Specifically, we have added the fol lowing

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 amount s greater than or equal to 1.0 percent by weight. We also revised the applicability provisions in § 63.11619(a) to specify that the rule applies to prepared feeds manufacturing facilities that use a material containing chromium or a material containi ng 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 essen tial minerals, intended to be fed directly to animals to meet or90

exceed total daily nutrient requirements.” The com menter also suggested that the definition of prepared feed s manufacturing facility be changed to specify that t he 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 incorp orate 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 rail car or truck it needs to extend. Another commenter recomm ended that the Agency amend the term “drop filter sock” t o “drop sock, since the device does not filter potential em issions in any manner.” Response : As discussed in section V.C.5, we have eliminated the use of the term “filter drop sock” i n the final rule. Therefore, this definition has been re moved. G. Impacts Assessment

Comment : One commenter believes that EPA’s estimated number of prepared feeds manufacturers affected by the91

proposed rule is inaccurately low. The commenter p oints out that EPA states that approximately 1,800 area-s ource prepared feed manufacturing facilities currently op erating add chromium compounds or manganese compounds to th eir products and therefore would be subject to the prop osed area source standards. In contrast, the commenter b elieves

that the actual number of affected facilities excee ds 6,300. The commenter notes that the FDA’s bovine spongiform encephalopathy inspection database curre ntly lists more than 6,300 feed mills in which FDA has c onducted inspections. The commenter points out that the actu al number of facilities subject to the proposed rule h as a direct impact on the agency’s stated benefits and c osts of

the rule. Response : We agree that the number of facilities subject to the rule is a key component in the asses sment of impacts. Ideally, we would not only have an estima te of the number of facilities in a source category for w hich we are developing regulations, but we would also have a list of those facilities. During our information gather ing efforts, it was clear that the industry was not wel l represented in the two national emissions data base s (TRI and NEI) that we typically use to characterize an i ndustry and their emissions. We also did not identify any other92

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 t hat 1,800 was a reasonable estimate. However, we appre ciate

that the commenter has now obtained other informati on that they believe indicates that the number of facilitie s 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 faci lities than just prepared feed mills. The FDA website say s the following: “Inspections of renderers, feed mills, ruminant feeders, protein blenders, pet feed manufacturers, pet feed salvagers, animal feed distributors and transporter s, 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 Manuf acturing area source category. Facilities in the Prepared Feeds Manufacturing Sour ce Category are classified under NAICS 311119, which i ncludes “establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing animal93

food (except dog and cat) from ingredients, such as grains, oilseed mill products, and meat products.” The pro posed applicability of the rule was taken directly from t his NAICS definition, except that it limited applicabil ity to

those animal feed manufacturers that use chromium o r manganese. The 2002 U.S. Economic Census of Manufa cturers reports 1,567 establishments under NAICS 311119. T he census reports 1,811 establishments under the broad er NAICS 31111. While NAICS 31111 likely includes establish ments that would not be included in the source category, we chose to place our estimate of the number of prepared fee d facilities at 1,800 to be conservative. As noted a bove, we sought input on this estimate and the commenter dee med it as a “reasonable estimate” (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2 008- 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 establ ishments 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 th at formed the basis for the source category listing. Since this listing was based on NAICS 311119, and no evid ence has94

been submitted that the Census information for NAIC S is incorrect, we did not change our estimate of the po pulation 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 indi cation of emissions to the atmosphere. The commenter stat ed that, by definition, the reported release may result from spilling, leaking, pouring, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposin g 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 “Fu gitive

Air Emissions” and “Point Source Air Emissions.” Therefore, we disagree with the comment, as these r eleases clearly represent an indication of emissions to the atmosphere.

Comment : One commenter expressed concerns about the methodology used to estimate emission levels of chr omium compounds, manganese compounds, and total PM. The commenter stated their belief that this analysis la cked a sound statistical basis, and that the baseline emis sion estimates and corresponding estimated potential emi ssion95

reductions used by EPA within its proposed rule are erroneous and do not support EPA’s proposed managem ent 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 industr y based on average emission rates from only 22 facilities represented in EPA’s 2006 TRI. The commenter point ed 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 comm enter also stated that facilities reporting the majority of these emissions produce trace mineral premixes subsequent ly used by other feed manufacturers, and that they do not h ave pelleting operations, which EPA identifies as the l argest emission source at prepared feed mills. With regard to the estimated PM emissions, the commenter indicated that they believe that the aver age PM

emission level calculated from the NEI was inaccura te. In particular, the commenter believes that the 70 faci lities 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 facilities96

significantly overestimates the PM emissions for th e entire industry. Response : The information questioned by the commenter were considered by EPA in the selection of GACT. A s discussed above in section V.D, This information di d not impact the decision to regulate chromium and mangan ese from the prepared feeds source category or the decision which emission sources to regulate. Further, the emissio n 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 th e commenter, the technical memorandum describing the

estimation of baseline emissions discussed the lack of facility-specific emissions data for the prepared f eeds industry. Given this lack of data, the approach se lected was to develop “model plants” to represent the indu stry. The use of model plants with “average” parameters i s a sound technical approach that EPA has long used whe n 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 i s inappropriate. However, we do recognize the concerns of the commenters with regard to the specific average emis sion97

levels utilized and the manner in which they were c reated. For instance, the average chromium compound emissio n level was based on a single facility’s emissions in the 2 006 TRI, and the average manganese compound emissions level was based on emissions from eight facilities. The comm enter did not provide any suggestions on how to improve t he analysis using the existing or other readily-availa ble 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 chang es further and presents the detailed updated results. 1. Changes to Analyses Percentage of Industry in Small Facility Subcatego ry . The proposal analysis estimated the number of prepa red feed manufacturing facilities with average daily feed pr oduction values of 50 tpd or less based on information submi tted 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 emi ssions and impacts analyses, EPA conducted an economic imp act98

analysis. As part of this analysis, EPA collected detailed

data from the 2002 Economic Census of Manufacturers that broke down the industry based on the number of empl oyees. This information suggested that the profile of the industry based on the industry questionnaire responses may h ave been biased slightly toward larger facilities (i.e., a l arger percentage of the industry would have average daily feed production rates of 50 tpd or less than originally estimated). Therefore, this new information was us ed, along with correlation between production and reven ues provided by a commenter, to reassess this profile. The revised analyses assume that 29 percent of the faci lities 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 facili ty in the industry added chromium-containing nutrients to their products. However, in response to follow-up questi ons asked by EPA on their public comments, the industry trade organizations stated that: “The use of chromium com pounds among feed manufacturers is not as prevalent as the use of manganese compounds. Until a recent FDA-approval fo r use in dairy feeds earlier this year, chromium compounds h ad been approved for use only in swine feeds. Only about 2 to 399

percent of feed mills in the U.S. use a chromium co mpound, and only two compounds, chromium proprionate and ch romium tripicolinate, are approved by FDA for use in swine feed.” Based on this information, the revised impacts anal ysis assumes that only 3 percent of the prepared feed manufacturing facilities in the United States use a nd emit

chromium. Facility Average Chromium and Manganese Emission

Rates . Because the national databases considered prior to proposal contained data for such a limited number o f prepared feed manufacturing facilities, a model pla nt 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 emi ssion

rates from such a limited data set. To broaden the data set, TRI data were obtained for every facility repo rting NAICS code 311119 and/or SIC 3048 for the years 199 0 through 2007. There were over 10,000 facilities re porting these NAICS/SIC codes over these 18 years, averagin g just over 570 facilities per year. On average, there we re 134 facilities reporting manganese emissions each year and 2 reporting chromium. These data were used to calcul ate new100

facility average manganese and chromium emission ra tes, which were used in the revised analyses.

Production Level To Calculate PM Emission Factor . In the proposal analyses, the facility average PM emis sion

rate from the 2002 NEI for emission sources after t he 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 producti on 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 produc tion level of 500 tpd provided by the commenter. Cyclone Efficiency for PM2.5 . The impacts analysis for the proposed rule assumed that cyclones would a chieve a 95 percent reduction efficiency for PM 2.5 . An efficiency chart provided by a commenter shows cyclone efficie ncies of approximately 30 percent for PM 2.5 . This value was used in the revised analysis. 2. Summary of Revised Results101

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 revi sed emissions levels prior to the implementation of thi s regulation are 8.2 tons per year of chromium, 195 t ons per year of manganese, around 11,000 tons per year of b oth PM

and PM2.5. The revised analysis also shows higher levels of chromium and manganese emission reductions and lowe r levels

of both PM and PM2.5 reductions. Since the costs w ere not impacted by the changes to the analyses, the cost

effectiveness of the controls were lower for the ch romium and manganese and higher for the PM and PM2.5. Cos t

effectiveness values are discussed further in the r evised impacts memo which is in the docket. Based on the comments, we did change the impacts, but none of th ese 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 th e adequacy of existing state programs to ensure compl iance, the additional economic and other burdens imposed b y title V permitting, and the lack of technical resources t o comply102

with permitting requirements for facilities that ar e mostly

small businesses. Response : We acknowledge the commenters’ support for the exemption from title V permitting requirements in t his

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 comment er states that section 502(a) of the CAA authorizes EP A to exempt area source categories from title V permitti ng requirements if the Administrator finds that compli ance with such requirements is “impracticable, infeasibl e or unnecessarily burdensome.” 42 U.S.C. section 7661a( a). The

commenter notes that EPA did not claim that title V requirements are impracticable or infeasible for th e source category it proposes to exempt, but that EPA instea d relied entirely on its claim that title V would be “unnece ssarily

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 provi sions of this chapter, promulgate regulations to exempt one or more source categories (in whole or in part) from the103

requirements of this subsection if the Administrato r finds that compliance with such requirements is impractic able, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on such cat egories, except that the Administrator may not exempt any ma jor 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 e xempt non-major (i.e., area) sources of air pollution fro m the requirements of title V. The commenter correctly no tes that EPA based the proposed exemptions solely on a deter mination that title V is “unnecessarily burdensome,” and did not rely on whether the requirements of title V are “impracticable” or “infeasible”, which are alternat ive bases for exempting area sources from title V. To the extent the commenter is asserting that EPA m ust

determine that all three criteria in CAA section 50 2 are met before an area source category can be exempted from title V, the commenter misreads the statute. The s tatute expressly provides that EPA may exempt an area sour ce category from title V requirements if EPA determine s that the requirements are “impracticable, infeasible or unnecessarily burdensome.” See CAA section 502 (emp hasis added). If Congress had wanted to require that all three104

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 ot her things, that the “burden” of compliance is unnecess ary. According to the commenter, by promulgating title V , Congress indicated that it viewed the burden impose d by its requirements as necessary as a general rule. The co mmenter maintained that the title V requirements provide ma ny benefits that Congress viewed as necessary. Thus, i n the commenter’s view, EPA must show why, for any given category, special circumstances make compliance unnecessary. The commenter believed that EPA has no t 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 burdensom e for an area source category. As stated above, the CAA prov ides the Administrator discretion to exempt an area source c ategory from title V if he determines that compliance with title V requirements is “impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome” on an area source categor y. See105

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 sour ce category, such that an exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, December 19, 2005 (“E xemption Rule”). In addition to interpreting the term “unnec essarily burdensome” and developing the four-factor balancin g test in the Exemption Rule, EPA applied the test to cert ain area source categories. The four factors that EPA identified in the Exempti on Rule for determining whether title V is unnecessari ly burdensome on a particular area source category inc lude: (1) whether title V would result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements, includ ing monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whet her 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 i n obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 F R 75324); (3) whether the costs of title V permitting for the area source category would be justified, taking int o106

consideration any potential gains in compliance lik ely to occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); and (4) wheth er there are implementation and enforcement programs in plac e that are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP for the area source category, without relying on title V pe rmits (70 FR 75326). 4 In discussing the above factors in the Exemption Ru le, 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 cat egory, and then we assessed whether considered together th ose 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

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 b y the legislative history of section 502(a), whether exem pting 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 deter mining that title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdens ome on the area source categories at issue here, we examined w hether the exemption from title V would adversely affect publi c health, welfare and the environment, and found that it woul d not.107

particular area source category. Instead, the facto rs are to be considered in combination and EPA determines whether the factors, taken together, support an exemption f rom title V for a particular source category.

The commenter asserts that “EPA must show . . . tha t 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 “unnecessar ily burdensome” in CAA section 502, but rather a new te st that

the commenter maintains EPA “must” meet in determin ing 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 th e 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 cat egory for which we proposed title V exemption. Had we sou ght to re-open our interpretation of the term “unnecessari ly burdensome” in CAA section 502 and modify it from w hat was articulated in the Exemption Rule, we would have st ated so in the July 27, 2009 proposed rule and solicited co mments on a revised interpretation, which we did not do. Accordingly, we reject the commenter’s attempt to c reate a new test for determining what constitutes “unnecess arily108

burdensome” under CAA section 502, as that issue fa lls outside the purview of this rulemaking. 5 Furthermore, we believe that the commenter’s positi on that “EPA must show . . . that the ’burden’ of comp liance is unnecessary” is unreasonable and contrary to Congressional intent concerning the applicability o f title V to area sources. Congress intended to treat area sources differently under title V, as it expressly authoriz ed the EPA Administrator to exempt such sources from the requirements of title V at her discretion. There ar e several instances throughout the CAA where Congress chose to treat major sources differently than non-major s ources, as it did in CAA section 502. Moreover, although th e commenter espouses a new interpretation of the term ‘unnecessarily burdensome’ in CAA section 502 and a ttempts to create a new test for determining whether the requirements of title V are ’unnecessarily burdenso me’ for an area source category, the commenter does not exp lain why EPA’s interpretation of the term ‘unnecessarily bur densome’ is arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accord ance with law. We maintain that our interpretation of th e term

5 If the commenter objected to our interpretation of the term “unnecessarily burdensome” in the Exemption Rule, i t should have commented on, and challenged, that rule. Any challe nge to the Exemption Rule is now time barred by CAA section 30 7(b). Although we received comments on the title V Exemption Rule during the rulemaking process, no one sought judicial review o f that rule.109

‘unnecessarily burdensome’ in section 502, as set f orth in the Exemption Rule, is reasonable.

Comment : One commenter stated that exempting a source category from title V permitting requirements depri ves both the public generally and individual members of the public who would obtain and use permitting information fro m the benefit of citizen oversight and enforcement that C ongress plainly viewed as necessary. According to the comme nter, the text and legislative history of the CAA provide that Congress intended ordinary citizens to be able to g et emissions and compliance information about air toxi cs sources and 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 Co ngress 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 t he 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 a s 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 impos sible — depending on the laws, regulations and practices of the110

state in which the source operates — for a member o f the public to obtain relevant information about its emi ssions and compliance status. The commenter stated that, l ikewise, it is difficult or impossible for citizens to bring

enforcement actions. The commenter continued that E PA does

not claim — far less demonstrate with substantial e vidence — that citizens would have the same ability to obta in compliance and emissions information about sources in the category it proposes to exempt without title V perm its. The commenter also said that, likewise, EPA does not cl aim —

far less demonstrate with substantial evidence — th at citizens would have the same enforcement ability. T hus, according to the commenter, the exemption EPA propo ses plainly eliminates benefits that Congress thought necessary. The commenter claimed that to, justify i ts exemption, EPA would have to show that the informat ional and enforcement benefits that Congress intended tit le V to confer — benefits which the commenter argues are el iminated 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 acknowle dge these benefits of title V, far less explain why the y are unnecessary, and that for this reason alone, EPA’s proposed exemptions are unlawful and arbitrary.111

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 s ource category. Specifically, the commenter argues that E PA 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 r evision of the fourth factor that EPA developed in the Exem ption Rule in interpreting the term “unnecessarily burden some” in CAA section 502. For all of the reasons explained a bove, the commenter’s attempt to create a new test for EP A to meet in determining whether title V is “unnecessari ly burdensome” on an area source category cannot be su stained. Moreover, EPA’s interpretation of the term “unneces sarily

burdensome” in CAA section 502 is reasonable. EPA reasonably applied the four factors to the fact s of the category at issue in this rule, and the comm enter has not identified any flaw in EPA’s application of the four factor test to the area source category at iss ue here. Moreover, as explained in the proposal, we consider ed implementation and enforcement issues in the fourth factor of the four-factor balancing test. Specifically, th e fourth factor of EPA’s unnecessarily burdensome analysis p rovides112

that EPA will consider whether there are implementa tion and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient t o 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 pla ce to assure compliance with the CAA. As stated in the pr oposal, we believe that state-delegated programs are suffic ient to assure compliance with the NESHAP and that States m ust have adequate programs to enforce section 112 requiremen ts and provide assurances that they will enforce the NESHA P before EPA will delegate the program. In addition, EPA re tains authority to enforce this NESHAP under the CAA. See 74 FR 36988. The commenter does not challenge the conclu sion that there are adequate state and federal programs in place to ensure compliance with and enforcement of the NE SHAP. 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 inf ormation

that states will treat information submitted under these NESHAP differently than information submitted pursu ant to a title V permit.113

Even accepting the commenter’s assertions that it i s more difficult for citizens to enforce the NESHAP a bsent 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 program s in place to enforce the NESHAP. The commenter has prov ided no information to the contrary or explained how the ab sence of title V actually impairs the ability of citizens to enforce the provisions of these NESHAP. Furthermore, the fourth factor is one factor that w e evaluated in determining if the title V requirement s were unnecessarily burdensome. As explained above, we co nsidered that factor together with the other factors and det ermined that it was appropriate to finalize the proposed ex emption

at issue in this rule.

Comment : One commenter explained that title V provides important monitoring benefits, and, according to th e commenter, EPA assumes that title V monitoring woul d not add any monitoring requirements beyond those requir ed by the regulations for the category. The commenter sa id 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 Fed. Reg. at 36987.” The commenter further114

states that “EPA argues that its proposed standard, by including these requirements, provides monitoring ’sufficient to assure compliance’ with the requirem ents of the proposed rule. Id.” The commenter maintains th at EPA made conclusory assertions and that the Agency fail ed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that the propos ed 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 arbi trary and capricious, and its exemption is unlawful and a rbitrary and capricious. Response : As noted in the earlier comment, EPA used the four-factor test to determine if title V requir ements were unnecessarily burdensome. In the first factor, EPA considers whether imposition of title V requirement s would result in significant improvements to the complianc e 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 pro posed NESHAP to determine the extent to which those requi rements are consistent with the requirements of title V. Se e 70 FR

75323.115

The commenter asserts that “EPA argues that its proposed standard, by including these requirements, ‘provides monitoring sufficient to assure complianc e with the proposed rule.’ See Fed Red. 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 requirement s. The monitoring component of the first factor favors title V exemption. For the management practices, th is proposed standard provides monitoring in the form o f recordkeeping that would assure compliance with the requirements of the proposed rule. Monitoring by m eans other than recordkeeping for the management practic es is not practical or appropriate. Records are required to ensure that the management practices are followed. The rule requires continuous parameter monitoring and p eriodic recording of the parameter for the required control device to assure compliance. The proposed rule requires t he owner or operator to record the date and results of perio dic control device inspections, as well as any actions taken in response to findings of the inspections. See 74 FR 36987.116

As the above excerpt states, we required continuous parameter monitoring and periodic records of the pa rameter 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 co mmenter does not provide any evidence that contradicts the conclusion that the proposed monitoring requirement s 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 belie ve that the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting require ments 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 a rguments sake, that the first factor alone cannot support th e exemption, the four-factor balancing test requires EPA to

examine the factors in combination and determine wh ether the factors, viewed together, weigh in favor of exe mption. See 74 FR 36987. As explained above, we determined that117

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 assert ing that compliance with title V requirements poses a “signi ficant 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 requ irements unless compliance is “unnecessarily burdensome.” Or in the commenter’s words, that “the compliance burden is especially great.” The commenter stated that in an y 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 comme nter claims that EPA has not justified why this source c ategory 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 b urden,” as expressed in the second factor of the four-facto r balancing test.118

As we have stated before, we found the burden place d on the prepared feed manufacturing area source cate gory in complying with title V requirements is unnecessaril y burdensome when we applied the four-factor balancin g test. We did not re-open EPA’s interpretation of the term “unnecessarily burdensome” in this rule. As explain ed above, we maintain that the Agency’s interpretation of the term “unnecessarily burdensome,” as set forth in th e Exemption Rule and reiterated in the proposal to th is rule,

is reasonable. In applying the four-factor test, we properly analy zed the second factor, i.e., will title V permitting im pose a significant burden on the area source, and will tha t burden be aggravated by any difficulty that the source may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency. Se e 74 FR 36988. EPA found that the sources would have a sig nificant burden because we estimated that the average cost o f obtaining and complying with a title V permit in ge neral was $65,700 per source for a 5-year permit period. 74 FR 36988. In addition, EPA found that most of the sou rces affected by this rule are small businesses. Small

businesses often lack the technical resources to co mply with the permitting requirements and the financial resources needed to hire the necessary staff or out side119

consultants. EPA found that not only is the individ ual cost of permitting significant for this source category (i.e., $65,700) but also that the cost to this source cate gory with approximately 1,800 sources as a whole is sign ificant. Furthermore, given the number of affected sources i n this source category (i.e., approximately 1,800), it wou ld likely be difficult for them to obtain assistance f rom the permitting authorities. These specific factors for the affected sources alone justify that EPA has properl y exempted the source category from title V. However , as discussed in the proposal and above, EPA analyzed a ll of the four factors in making its determination that t hese sources should be exempt from title V permitting requirements; and we found that the totality of the se 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 i n compliance with underlying requirements in the rele vant 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 co mmenter, the Agency provides no specific reasons to believe that the additional informational, monitoring, reporting, certification, and enforcement requirements that ex ist in120

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 co nfer additional compliance benefits. According to the co mmenter, by advancing such argument, EPA merely seeks to ele vate its own policy judgment over Congress’ decisions reflec ted in the CAA’s text and legislative history. Response : The commenter takes out of context certain statements in the proposed rule concerning the fact ors 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 fo urfactor balancing test with regard to determining wh ether imposition of title V would result in significant improvements in compliance. In addition, the commen ter mischaracterizes the analysis in the third factor o f the balancing test which instructs EPA to take into acc ount any gains in compliance that would result from the impo sition of the title V requirements. First, EPA nowhere states, nor does it believe, tha t title V never confers additional compliance benefit s as the commenter asserts. While EPA recognizes that requir ing a121

title V permit offers additional compliance options , the statute provides that EPA must assess whether compl iance with title V would be unnecessarily burdensome to t he specific area sources at issue. For the source cate gory subject to this rulemaking, EPA concluded that requ iring 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 complianc e requirements, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area source cat egory.” Thus, contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the in quiry

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, cons istent with the goal of title V permitting. For example, i n the Initial Notification, the source must include infor mation about the facility and its operations. The source m ust also certify how it is complying and that it has complie d with122

the required management practices and associated recordkeeping requirements. The source must furthe r certify that it has installed controls, if necessar y 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 see ing 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 th at it is complying with the management practices finalized i n this

rule. See section 63.11624 in the final rule. The s ource must monitor and demonstrate cyclone performance ef ficiency and, if applicable, must begin corrective action an d record the specifics about the corrective action upon seei ng any deviation in the pressure drop or fan amperage in t he control equipment. The source must also submit devi ation reports to the permitting agency in the annual repo rt if there has been a deviation in the requirements of t he rule.

See section 63.11624 in the final rule. EPA believe s that these requirements in the rule itself provide suffi cient basis to assure compliance with the final emission standards, and does not believe that the title V requirements, if applicable to these sources, would offer123

significant improvements in the compliance of the s ources with the rule. Third, the commenter incorrectly characterizes our statements in the proposed rule concerning our appl ication of the third factor. Under the third factor, EPA ev aluates “whether the costs of title V permitting for the ar ea source category would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance lik ely to occur for such sources.” Contrary to what the comme nter alleges, EPA did not state in the proposed rule tha t compliance with title V would not yield any gains i n compliance with the underlying requirements in the relevant NESHAP, nor does factor three require such a determ ination. Instead, consistent with the third factor, we consi dered 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 wha t the rule requires. EPA reviewed the area source categor y at issue and determined that the vast majority of the approximately 1,800 sources that would be subject t o the rule currently do not have a title V permit. As sta ted in the proposal, EPA estimated that the average cost o f obtaining and complying with a title V permit was $ 65,700124

per source for a 5-year permit period, including fe es. See Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operatin g Permit Regulations, 72 FR 32290, June 12, 2007, EPA ICR Nu mber 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 subj ect 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 consider ing the third factor, we stated in part that, “Because the costs of compliance with title V are so high, and the potent ial for gains in compliance is low, title V permitting is n ot justified for this source category. Accordingly, t he third factor supports the proposed title V exemptions for this area source category.” See 74 FR 36988. Most import antly, EPA considered all four factors in the balancing te st in determining whether title V was unnecessarily burde nsome on the prepared feeds manufacturing area source catego ry. EPA found it reasonable after considering all four fact ors 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 appli cation of the four-factor balancing test to the specific f acts of the source category at issue here, the comments pro vide no125

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 underlyi ng NESHAP showing that with respect to these specific NESHAP — unlike all the other major and area source NESHAP i t has issued without title V exemptions — title V complia nce is unnecessary.” Instead, according to the commenter, EPA merely pointed to existing state requirements and t he potential for actions by states and EPA that are ge nerally applicable to all categories (along with some small business and voluntary programs). The commenter sai d that, absent a showing by EPA that distinguishes the sour ces it proposes to exempt from other sources, however, the Agency’s argument boils down to the claim that it g enerally views title V requirements as unnecessary. The comm enter stated that, while this may be EPA’s view, it was n ot Congress’ view when Congress enacted title V, and a general view that title V is unnecessary does not suffice t o 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 Exemp tion Rule. Our interpretation of the term “unnecessarily126

burdensome” is not the subject of this rulemaking. In any event, as explained above, we believe the Agency’s interpretation of the term “unnecessarily burdensom e” 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 determinatio n as to whether there are implementation and enforcement pr ograms in place that are sufficient to assure compliance w ith the rule without relying on the title V permits. In dis cussing the fourth factor in the proposal, EPA states that prior to delegating implementation and enforcement to a stat e, EPA must ensure that the state has programs in place to enforce the rule. EPA believes that these programs will be sufficient to assure compliance with the rule. EPA also retains authority to enforce this NESHAP anytime un der CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. EPA also noted other fac tors in the proposal that together are sufficient to assure compliance with this area source. The commenter argues that EPA cannot exempt this ar ea source category from title V permitting requirement s 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 ar ea source NESHAP it has issued without title V exempti ons —127

title V compliance is unnecessary” (emphasis added) . As an initial matter, EPA cannot exempt major sources fro m title V permitting. 42 U.S.C. 502(a). As for area sources , the standard that the commenter proposes – that EPA mus t 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 unnecessari ly burdensome for the source category at issue. Furthermore, we disagree that the basis for excludi ng the area source prepared feeds manufacturing catego ry 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 th is rule. For example, in assessing whether the costs of requ iring the sources to obtain a title V permit was burdenso me, we concluded that because the vast majority of the sou rces did not have a title V permit, the costs imposed on the source category were significant compared to the additiona l compliance benefits offered by the title V permitti ng

process.

Comment : One commenter stated that the legislative history of the CAA shows that Congress did not inte nd EPA128

to exempt source categories from compliance with ti tle V unless doing so would not adversely affect public h ealth, welfare, or the environment. See 74 Fed. Reg.36988. Nonetheless, according to the commenter, EPA does n ot make any showing that its exemption would not have adver se impacts on health, welfare and the environment. The commenter stated that, instead, EPA offered only th e conclusory assertion that “the level of control wou ld remain the same” whether title V permits are requir ed or not 74 Fed. Reg. 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 commente r stated that those arguments are wrong for the reasons give n above, and therefore EPA’s claims about public health, wel fare and the environment are wrong too. The commenter also s tated that Congress enacted title V for a reason: to assu re compliance with all applicable requirements and to empower citizens to get information and enforce the CAA. Th e commenter said that those benefits — of which EPA’s proposed rule deprives the public — would improve compliance with the underlying standards and thus h ave benefits for public health, welfare and the environ ment.129

According to the commenter, EPA has not demonstrate d 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 at tempt to substitute EPA’s judgment for Congress’ is unlawful and arbitrary. Response : Congress gave the Administrator the authority to exempt area sources from compliance wi th title V if, in his or her discretion, the Administrator “ finds that compliance with [title V] is impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome.” See CAA s ection 502(a). EPA has interpreted one of the three justif ications for exempting area sources, “unnecessarily burdenso me”, as requiring consideration of the four factors discuss ed above. EPA applied these four factors to the area s ource category subject to this rule and concluded that re quiring title V for this area source category would be unnecessarily burdensome. In addition to determinin g that title V would be unnecessarily burdensome on the pr epared feed manufacturing area source category, EPA also considered whether exempting the area source catego ry would adversely affect public health, welfare or the envi ronment. As explained in the proposal preamble, we concluded that130

exempting the area source category at issue in this rule would not adversely affect public health, welfare o r the

environment because the level of control would be t he same even if title V applied. We further explained in th e proposal preamble that the title V permit program d oes not generally impose new substantive air quality contro l requirements on sources, but instead requires that certain procedural measures be followed, particularly with respect to determining compliance with applicable requireme nts. The commenter has not provided any information that exe mption of this area source category from title V will adve rsely 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 so urce category are approximately 11,000 tons/yr, with approximatley 11,000 tons/yr of PM 2.5 , 195 tons/yr of manganese and just over 8 tons/yr of chromium. We believe that management practices are already being impleme nted throughout the industry. Therefore, we do not expe ct any additional reductions in chromium compound, mangane se compound, or general PM emissions from these measur es. We estimate that the requirement to install cyclones o n the pelleting processes at the facilities with average daily131

feed production levels exceeding 50 tpd will result in emission reductions of around 1,100 tons/yr of PM, 100 tons/yr of PM 2.5 , and approximately 20 tons/yr of manganese and chromium emissions. While cyclones d o remove PM from the air stream, these solids are typically recycled back to the process. Therefore, we do not anticipa te any significant indirect or secondary air impacts of th is 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 prop osed management practices. Therefore, there will be no

additional costs for these measures. We estimate t hat the nationwide capital costs for the installation of cy clones on the pelleting cooling operations at the large fa cilities 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 tha n 500 employees, which is the threshold to be conside red “small” by the Small Business Administration. It i s currently estimated that under 2 percent of the fac ilities (26 facilities) in the category would potentially n eed to install new cyclones under the proposed regulatory alternative. The potential impact on the industry as a132

percentage of the value of shipments is small. Und er the proposed regulatory alternative, the largest potent ial impact is estimated as 0.96 percent of shipments fo r a subset of firms with an overall impact of 0.94 perc ent of shipments for the industry as a whole. As a result , this action is not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities or the economy as a whole, regardless of whether or not the firms in th e industry are able to pass along any increases in th eir

costs to the consumers. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Revi ew This action is a “significant regulatory action” un der the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oc tober 4, 1993) because it may raise novel legal or policy is sues and is, therefore, subject to review under the Executiv e Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to OMB for r eview under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documente d in the

docket for this action. B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this fin al rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 501 et seq. The133

Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepa red by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2354.02. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in thi s final rule are based on the requirements in EPA's N ESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). Th e recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the Gen eral Provisions are mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C 7414). All information other than emissi ons data submitted to EPA pursuant to the information collec tion requirements for which a claim of confidentiality i s 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 Provisio ns (subpart A). The annual burden for this informatio n collection averaged over the first three years of t his ICR is estimated to be a total of 27,000 labor hours pe r 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 informa tion134

unless it displays a currently valid OMB control nu mber. The OMB control numbers for EPA regulations in 40 C FR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requir es an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requi rements 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 busin esses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governm ental jurisdictions. For the purposes of assessing the impacts of th is rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small

business that meets the Small Business Administrati on size

standards for small businesses found at 13 CFR 121. 201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a governm ent of a city, county, town, school district, or special dis trict with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a sm all organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominan t in its

field.135

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 manufact uring

facilities. We estimate that all these facilities may be

small entities. We have determined that small entit y compliance costs, as assessed by the facilities' co st-tosales ratio, are expected to be less than 0.004 per cent for

the estimated 26 facilities that would not initiall y be in compliance. Although this final rule contains requ irements for new area sources, we are not aware of any new a rea sources being constructed now or planned in the nex t three years, and consequently, we did not estimate any im pacts

for new sources. Although this final rule will not have a significa nt economic impact on a substantial number of small en tities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce such impact. T he standards represent practices and controls that are common throughout the prepared feeds manufacturing industr y. The standards also require only the essential recordkee ping and reporting needed to demonstrate and verify complian ce. These standards were developed in consultation with small136

business representatives on the state and national level and the trade associations that represent small bus inesses.

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 aggreg ate, or to the private sector in any one year. This rule i s not expected to impact State, local, or tribal governme nts.

The nationwide annualized cost of this rule for aff ected industrial sources is around $3 million/yr. Thus, this rule would not be subject to the requirements of se ctions 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UM RA). This final rule would also not be subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it cont ains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The rule would not apply to such governments and would impose no oblig ations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It

will not have substantial direct effects on the Sta tes, on the relationship between the national government an d the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of govern ment, as137

specified in Executive Order 13132

. This rule does not impose any requirements on State and local governme nts. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this final

rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordina tion

with Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, No vember 9, 2000). This final rule imposes no requirements on tribal governments; thus, Executive Order 13175 doe s not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children fr om Environmental Health and Safety Risks EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 198 85, April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory act ions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the p otential to influence the regulation. This action is not su bject to EO 13045 because it is based solely on technology performance. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regula tions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distributi on, or

Use138

This final rule is not a “significant energy ac tion” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significan t 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. Existin g energy requirements for this industry would not be signifi cantly impacted by the additional controls or other equipm ent 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 No. 1 04-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use volun tary consensus standards in its regulatory activities un less to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standard s are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications , test methods, sampling procedures, and business practice s) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus sta ndards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, thr ough OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to us e available and applicable voluntary consensus standa rds. The rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the Agency conducted a search to identif y139

potentially applicable voluntary consensus standard s. However, we identified no such standards, and none were brought to our attention in comments. Therefore, EP A has

decided to use technical standard Method 5 of 40 CF R 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 Addres s Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and L owIncome Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environment al justice. Its main provision directs federal agencie s, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by la w, 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 pop ulations because it increases the level of environmental pro tection140

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 establ ishes national standards for the Prepared Feeds Manufactu ring area source category; this will reduce HAP emission s, therefore decreasing the amount of emissions to whi ch 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 Enforceme nt Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that befor e a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule m ust submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller Gener al of the United States. EPA will submit a report contai ning this final rule and other required information to t he 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 Regis ter . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after i t is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a141

“major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This f inal rule will be effective on [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATI ON IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].142

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollu tants: Area Source Standards for Prepared Feeds Manufactur ing Page 142 of 166

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Air pollution control , Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

________________________ Dated:

________________________ Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator.143

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, c hapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is pr oposed

to be amended as follows: PART 63—-[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as

follows: Authority : 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq . Subpart A—[AMENDED] 2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart DDDDDDD to read as

follows: Subpart DDDDDDD—National Emission Standards for Haz ardous 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 existin g prepared feeds manufacturing facilities? 63.11622 What are the monitoring requirements for n ew and existing sources? 63.11623 What are the testing requirements?144

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 Haz ardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Prepared Feeds Manufacturing Applicability and Compliance Dates § 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 tha t uses a material containing chromium or a material containi ng manganese and is an area source of emissions of haz ardous air pollutants (HAP). (b) The provisions of this subpart apply to each ne w and existing prepared feeds manufacturing affected source.145

A prepared feeds manufacturing affected source is t he collection of all equipment and activities necessar y to produce animal feed from the point in the process w here a material containing chromium or a material containi ng manganese is added, to the point where the finished animal feed product leaves the facility. This includes, b ut is not limited to, areas where materials containing ch romium and manganese are stored, areas where materials con taining chromium and manganese are temporarily stored prior to addition to the feed at the mixer, mixing and grind ing processes, pelleting and pellet cooling processes, packing and bagging processes, crumblers and screens, bulk loading operations, and all conveyors and other equipment t hat transfer the feed materials throughout the manufact uring facility. (1) A prepared feeds manufacturing affected source is existing if you commenced construction or reconstru ction 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 necess ary to produce animal feed at a prepared feeds manufact uring facility becomes an affected source when you commen ce using146

a material containing chromium or a material contai ning

manganese. (c) An affected source is no longer subject to this subpart if the facility stops using materials conta ining chromium or manganese. (d) This subpart does not apply to the facilities identified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this sec tion. (1) Prepared feeds manufacturing facilities that do not add any materials containing chromium or mangan ese 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, prov ided you are not otherwise required by law to obtain a permi t under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with the prov isions of this subpart. § 63.11620 What are my compliance dates? (a) If you own or operate an existing affected sour ce, you must achieve compliance with the applicable pro visions of this subpart by no later than [INSERT DATE TWO Y EARS

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]

.147

(b) If you own or operate a new affected source, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisi ons of this subpart by [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 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 § 63.11619 after the applicable compliance date in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, you must achieve compliance with the appli cable provisions of this subpart by the date that you com mence 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 f acility not complying with the requirement in § 63.11621(e) to install and operate a cyclone to control emissions from pelleting operations, you must comply with § 63.116 21(e) and all associated requirements by July 1 of the ye ar following the one-year period. Standards, Monitoring, and Compliance Requirements § 63.11621 What are the standards for new and exist ing prepared feed manufacturing facilities? You must comply with the management practices and s tandards in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section at al l times.148

(a) In all areas of the affected source where materials containing chromium or manganese are stor ed, used, or handled, you must comply with the manageme nt practices in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this sect ion. (1) You must perform housekeeping measures to minimize excess dust. These measures must include, but not be limited to, the practices specified in paragraph s (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) You must use either an industrial vacuum syste m 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 pressur e air or by other means, and then sweep or vacuum the area; (iii) You must keep doors shut except during norma l ingress and egress. (2) You must maintain and operate all process equipment in accordance with manufacturer’s specifi cations

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 o r manganese are added must be covered at all times wh en mixing is occurring, except when the materials are being added to the mixer. Materials containing chromium or149

manganese must be added to the mixer in a manner th at

minimizes emissions. (d) For the bulk loading process where prepared fee d products containing chromium or manganese are loade d into trucks or railcars, you must use a device at the lo adout end of each bulk loader to lessen fugitive emission s by reducing the distance between the loading arm and t he 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 mus t capture emissions and route them to a cyclone desig ned to reduce emissions of particulate matter by 95 percen t 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 desi gned to reduce emissions of particulate matter by 95 per cent or greater using one of the methods specified in parag raphs (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 § 63.11623 of this section.150

(2) You must establish an inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage range that represents proper operation of the cyclone in accor dance with the applicable requirement in (e)(2)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section. (i) If you demonstrate the cyclone design efficien cy using manufacturer specifications in accordance wit h paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section, the inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage rang e that represents proper operation of the cyclone must be provided by the manufacturer. (ii) If you demonstrate the cyclone design efficie ncy 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 effici ency using a performance test in accordance with paragra ph (e)(1)(iii) of this section, you must monitor the i nlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan am perage during the test and establish a range that represen ts151

proper operation of the cyclone based on the data o btained during the test. (3) You must maintain and operate the cyclone in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. If manufacturer’s specifications are not available, yo u must develop and follow standard maintenance and operati ng procedures that ensure proper operation of the cycl one. § 63.11622 What are the monitoring requirements for new and existing sources? (a) If you own or operate an affected source requir ed by § 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 inspectio ns of each device to ensure it is in proper working condi tion. You must record the results of these inspections in accordance with § 63.11624(c)(4) of this subpart. (b) If you own or operate an affected source requir ed by § 63.11621(e) to install and operate a cyclone t o control emissions from pelleting operations, you mu st comply with the inspection and monitoring requireme nts 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 that152

could result in air in-leakage, and record the resu lts in accordance with § 63.11624(c)(5)(ii). (2) You must monitor inlet flow rate, inlet velocit y, pressure drop, or fan amperage at least once per da y when the pelleting process is in operation. You must al so record the inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressur e drop, or fan amperage in accordance with § 63.11624(c)(5) (iii). § 63.11623 What are the testing requirements? (a) If you are demonstrating that the cyclone requ ired by § 63.11621(e) is designed to reduce emissions of particulate matter by 95 percent or greater by the performance test option in § 63.11621(e)(1)(iii), y ou must conduct a test in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section and calculate the percent reduction in acco rdance 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 i nlet and outlet of the cyclone. You must conduct at least t hree runs at the cyclone inlet and three runs at the cyc lone outlet. Each run must have a sampling time of at l east 60 minutes and a sample volume of at least 0.85 dscm ( 30 dscf). (c) You must calculate the percent particulate ma tter reduction using Equation 1.153

PM RED M M

M x INLET OUTLET INLET = −    

  100 Equation 1

Where: PM RED = particulate matter reduction, percent;

M INLET = Mass of particulate matter at the inlet of the cyclone, dry basis, corrected to standard condition s, g/min;

M OUTLET = Mass of particulate matter at the outlet of the cyclone, dry basis, corrected to standard condi tions, g/min; § 63.11624 What are the notification, reporting, an d recordkeeping requirements? (a) Notifications. You must submit the notifications identified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this sec tion. (1) Initial Notification. If you are the owner of an affected source you must submit an Initial Notifica tion no later than [INSERT DATE 120 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF

PUBLICATION in THE FEDERAL REGISTER ], or 120 days after you become subject to the rule, 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 addr ess of the owner and operator;154

(ii) The address (physical location) of the affecte d

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 subm it a Notification of Compliance Status in accordance wit h § 63.9(h) of the General Provisions on or before [INS ERT DATE

2 YEARS AND 120 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] . 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 startu p, or by [INSERT DATE 120 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] , whichever is later. If you own or operate an affected source that becomes an affected source in accordance with §63.11619(b)(3) after the applic able compliance date in §63.11620 (a) or (b), you must s ubmit a Notification of Compliance Status within 120 days o f the date that you commence using materials containing m anganese or chromium. This Notification of Compliance Statu s must include the information specified in paragraphs (a) (2)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) Your company’s name and address;155

(ii) A statement by a responsible official with tha t official’s name, title, phone number, e-mail addres s and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and comp leteness

of the notification and a statement of whether the source has complied with all the relevant standards and ot her requirements of this subpart; (iii) If you own or operate an affected source required by § 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 am perage range that constitutes proper operation of the cycl one determined in accordance with § 63.11621(e)(2). (iv) If you own or operate an affected source that is not subject to the requirement in § 63.11621(e) to install and operate a cyclone to control emissions from pel leting operations because your initial average daily feed production level was 50 tpd or less, documentation of your initial daily pelleting production level determinat ion. (b) Annual compliance certification report. You must, by March 1 of each year, prepare an annual complian ce 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.156

(2) A statement by a responsible official with that official’s name, title, phone number, e-mail addres s and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and comp leteness

of the notification and a statement of whether the source has complied with all the relevant standards and ot her requirements of this subpart. (3) If the source is not in compliance, include a description of deviations from the applicable requi rements, the time periods during which the deviations occurr ed, 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 o peration of the cyclone submitted as part of your Notificati on of Compliance Status. In these instances, include the time periods when this occurred and the corrective actio ns

taken. (5) If you own or operate an affected source that is not subject to the requirement in § 63.11621(e) to install and operate a cyclone to control emissions from pel leting operations because your average daily feed producti on level was 50 tpd or less, notification if your average da ily feed production level for the previous year exceeded 50 tpd.157

(6) If you own or operate an affected source that w as subject to the requirement in § 63.11621(e) to inst all and operate a cyclone to control emissions from pelleti ng operations, notification if your average daily feed production level for the previous year was 50 tpd o r less and that you are no longer complying with § 63.1162 1(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 th is

section. (1) As required in § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv), you must kee p a copy of each notification that you submitted to com ply with this subpart in accordance with paragraph (a) of th is section, and all documentation supporting any Initi al Notification or Notification of Compliance Status t hat 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 § 63.11621(d), you must keep the re cords of all inspections including the information identifie d in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) The date, place, and time of each inspection;158

(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 § 63.11621(e), you must keep the re cords in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (v) of this section. (i) If you demonstrate that the cyclone is designe d to reduce emission of particulate matter by 95 perc ent or greater by manufacturer’s specifications in accord ance with § 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 ens ure proper operation of the cyclone. (ii) If you demonstrate that the cyclone is designe d to reduce emissions of particulate matter by 95 per cent or159

greater by certification by a professional enginee r in accordance with paragraph § 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 o f 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 procedur es that ensure proper operation of the cyclone. (iii) If you demonstrate that the cyclone is desig ned to reduce emissions of particulate matter by 95 per cent or greater by a performance in accordance with paragr aph § 63.11621(e)(1)(iii), you must keep the records sp ecified in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of this se ction. (A) Results of the testing conducted in accordance with § 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 procedur es that ensure proper operation of the cyclone.160

(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 measuremen ts, along with the date, time, and duration of the corr ection action period from the time the monitoring indicate d a problem to the time of the indication that the cycl one was restored to proper operation. (5) If you own or operate an affected source that is not subject to the requirement in § 63.11621(e) to install and operate a cyclone to control emissions from pel leting operations because your average daily feed producti on level is 50 tpd or less, feed production records to enabl e the determination of the average daily feed production level.161

(6) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to § 63.10(b)(1). (7) As specified in § 63.10(b)(1), you must keep ea ch record for 5 years following the date of each recor ded

action. (8) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the date of each recorded action accord ing to § 63.10(b)(1). You may keep the records offsite fo r the remaining 3 years. (d) If you no longer use materials that contain manganese or chromium after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICA TION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must submit a Notificati on in

accordance with § 63.11619(c)which includes the information specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this sect ion. (1) Your company’s name and address; (2) A statement by a responsible official indicat ing that the facility no longer uses materials that con tain chromium or manganese. This statement should also include

an effective date for the termination of use of mat erials that contain chromium or manganese, and the respons ible official’s name, title, phone number, e-mail addres s and signature. Other Requirements and Information162

§ 63.11625 What parts of the General Provisions app ly to my facility? Table 1 of this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in §§ 63.1 through 63.16 apply t o you. § 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, lo cal, or tribal agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegat ed authority to your state, local, or tribal agency, t hen that agency has the authority to implement and enforce t his subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Offic e 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 tri bal agency under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities contained i n paragraph (c) of this section are retained by the E PA Administrator and are not transferred to the state, local, or tribal agency. (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to sta te, local, or tribal agencies are specified in paragrap hs (c)(1) through (5) of this section.163

(1) Approval of an alternative nonopacity emissions standard under § 63.6(g). (2) Approval of an alternative opacity emissions standard under § 63.6(h)(9). (3) Approval of a major change to test methods unde r § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A “major change to test met hod” is defined in § 63.90. (4) Approval of a major change to monitoring under § 63.8(f). A “major change to monitoring” is defined in §

63.90. (5) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping and reporting under § 63.10(f). A “major change to recordkeeping/reporting” is defined in § 63.90. § 63.11627 What definitions apply to this subpart? Terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA, in § 63.2, and in this section.

Animal feed

includes: dehydrated alfalfa meal; alfalfa prepared as feed for animals; cubed alfalfa; prepa red animal feed; chopped, crushed, or ground barley fee d; prepared bird feed; blended animal feed; bone meal prepared as feed for animals and fowls; cattle feeds, suppl ements, concentrates, and premixes; prepared chicken feeds; cattle feed citrus pulp; complete livestock feed; custom m illed animal feed; dairy cattle feeds supplements, concen trates,164

and premixes; earthworm food and bedding; animal fe ed concentrates; animal feed premixes; animal feed supplements; prepared animal feeds; specialty anima l (e.g., guinea pig, mice, mink) feeds; fish food for feedin g fish; custom ground grains for animal feed; cubed hay; ke lp meal and pellets animal feed; laboratory animal feed; li vestock feeds, supplements, concentrates and premixes; alfa lfa meal; bone meal prepared as feed for animals and fo wls; 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 f eed supplements, concentrates, and premixes; and prepar ed 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 ov er an annual period. The initial determination of the av erage daily feed production level is based on the one-yea r period prior to the compliance date for existing sources, or the design rate for new sources. The subsequent averag e daily feed production levels are determined annually and are based on the amount of animal feed products produce d in a165

calendar year divided by the number of days in whic h 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.

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 amount s 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 cru mbling, and granulation. Prepared feeds manufacturing facility means a facility that is primarily engaged in manufacturing animal f eed. A facility is primarily engaged in manufacturing anim al 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 rais ing or feeding animals are not prepared feed manufacturing facilities. Facilities engaged in the growing of agricultural crops that are used in the manufacturi ng of166

feed are not considered prepared feeds manufacturin g facilities. § 63.11628—63.11638 [Reserv 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 § 63.11619, you must meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you. Draft Part 63 General Provisions to be incorporated for Prepared Feeds:

Citation Subject Applies to Subpart DDDDDDD? 63.1 Applicability. Yes. 63.2 Definitions. Yes. 63.3 Units and Abbreviations. Yes.

63.4 Prohibited Activities and Circumvention. Yes.

63.5 Preconstruction Review and Notification Requirements. No.

63.6(a),(b)(1)- (b)(5), (b)(7), (c), (f)(2)- (3), (g), (i), and (j) Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements Yes.

63.6(e)(1), (e)(3), (f)(1), and (h) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction requirements and opacity/visible emission standards. No. Standards apply at all times, including during startup, shutdown, and malfunction events.167

63.7 Performance Testing Requirements Yes. 63.8 Monitoring Requirements Yes. 63.9(a), (b), (c), (d), (h), (i), and (j) Notification Requirements. Yes. 63.9(e), (f), (g) No 63.10(a),(b)(1), (b)(2)(i)-(iii), (b)(2)(vi)- (xiv), (c), (d)(1), (e), and (f) Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v), (b)(3), and (d)(2)–(5) Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements No.

63.11 Control Device Requirements No.

63.12 State Authorities and Delegations. Yes.

63.13 Addresses. Yes. 63.14 Incorporations by Reference. Yes. 63.15 Availability of Information and Confidentiality. Yes.

63.16 Performance Track Provisions. Yes. 63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)- (9), (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) Reserved No.