Tuesday, 

January 5, 2010 

Part II 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 63 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area Source 

Standards for Prepared Feeds 

Manufacturing; Final Rule 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
522 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0080; FRL–9095–2] 

RIN 2060–AO98 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area Source 

Standards for Prepared Feeds 

Manufacturing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing national 

emission standards for control of 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) for the 

Prepared Feeds Manufacturing area 

source category. The emissions 

standards for new and existing sources 

are based on EPA’s determination as to 

what constitutes the generally available 

control technology or management 

practices for the area source category. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 5, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0080. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the Federal Docket Management System 

index at http:// 

www.regulations.gov.index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., confidential 

business information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading 

Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Jan King, Outreach and Information 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards (C404–05), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, telephone number: (919) 541– 

5665; fax number: (919) 541–7674; 

e-mail address: king.jan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

supplementary information in this 

preamble is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This 

Document? 

C. Judicial Review 

II. Background Information for This Final 

Rule 

III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal 

A. Applicability 

B. Standards and Compliance 

Requirements 

C. Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

D. Definitions 

IV. Summary of Final Standards 

A. What Are the Applicability Provisions 

and Compliance Dates? 

B. What Are the Final Standards? 

C. What Are the Compliance 

Requirements? 

D. What Are the Notification, 

Recordkeeping, and Reporting 

Requirements? 

V. Summary of Comments and Responses 

A. Rulemaking Process 

B. Applicability 

C. Emission Standards 

D. Inspections and Compliance Provisions 

E. Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

F. Definitions 

G. Impacts Assessment 

H. Title V Requirements 

VI. Impacts of the Final Standards 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

The regulated categories and entities 

potentially affected by the final 

standards are prepared feeds 

manufacturers who add chromium 

compounds or manganese compounds 

to their product. In general, the facilities 

potentially affected by the rule are 

covered under the North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) code listed in the following 

table. 

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 entities likely to be 

affected by this action. To determine 

whether your facility would be 

regulated by this action, you should 

examine the applicability criteria in 40 

CFR 63.11619 of subpart DDDDDDD 

(NESHAP for Area Sources: Prepared 

Feeds Manufacturing). If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

either the air permit authority for the 

entity or your EPA regional 

representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 

of subpart A (General Provisions). 

B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This 

Document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final 

action will also be available on the 

Worldwide Web (WWW) through EPA’s 

Technology Transfer Network (TTN). A 

copy of this final action will be posted 

on the TTN’s policy and guidance page 

for newly proposed or promulgated 

rules at the following address: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

C. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), judicial review of this 

final rule is available only by filing a 

petition for review in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit by March 8, 2010. 

Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 

requirements established by this final 

rule may not be challenged separately in 

any civil or criminal proceedings 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 523 

brought by EPA to enforce these 

requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA 

further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an 

objection to a rule or procedure which 

was raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

(including any public hearing) may be 

raised during judicial review.’’ This 

section also provides a mechanism for 

EPA to convene a proceeding for 

reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising 

an objection can demonstrate to EPA 

that it was impracticable to raise such 

objection within [the period for public 

comment] or if the grounds for such 

objection arose after the period for 

public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule.’’ Any person 

seeking to make such a demonstration to 

us should submit a Petition for 

Reconsideration to the Office of the 

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, 

Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with 

a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section, and the Associate 

General Counsel for the Air and 

Radiation Law Office, Office of General 

Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

II. Background Information for This 

Final Rule 

Section 112(d) of the CAA requires 

EPA to establish national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for both major and area 

sources of HAP that are listed for 

regulation under CAA section 112(c). A 

major source emits or has the potential 

to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more 

of any single HAP or 25 tpy or more of 

any combination of HAP. An area 

source is a stationary source that is not 

a major source. 

Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls 

for EPA to identify at least 30 HAP 

which, as the result of emissions from 

area sources, pose the greatest threat to 

public health in the largest number of 

urban areas. EPA implemented this 

provision in 1999 in the Integrated 

Urban Air Toxics Strategy, (64 FR 

38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, in 

the Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that 

pose the greatest potential health threat 

in urban areas, and these HAP are 

referred to as the ‘‘30 urban HAP.’’ 

Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list 

sufficient categories or subcategories of 

area sources to ensure that area sources 

representing 90 percent of the emissions 

of the 30 urban HAP are subject to 

regulation. We implemented these 

requirements through the Integrated 

Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, 

July 19, 1999). A primary goal of the 

Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent 

reduction in cancer incidence 

attributable to HAP emitted from 

stationary sources. 

Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may 

elect to promulgate standards or 

requirements for area sources ‘‘which 

provide for the use of generally 

available control technologies or 

management practices (GACT) by such 

sources to reduce emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants.’’ Additional 

information on GACT is found in the 

Senate report on the legislation (Senate 

Report Number 101–228, December 20, 

1989), which describes GACT as: 

* * * methods, practices and techniques 

which are commercially available and 

appropriate for application by the sources in 

the category considering economic impacts 

and the technical capabilities of the firms to 

operate and maintain the emissions control 

systems. 

Consistent with the legislative history, 

we can consider costs and economic 

impacts in determining GACT. This is 

particularly important when developing 

regulations for source categories, like 

this one, that have many small 

businesses, as defined by the Small 

Business Administration. 

Determining what constitutes GACT 

involves considering the control 

technologies and management practices 

that are generally available to the area 

sources in the source category. We also 

consider the standards applicable to 

major sources in the same industrial 

sector to determine if the control 

technologies and management practices 

are transferable and generally available 

to area sources. In appropriate 

circumstances, we may also consider 

technologies and practices at area and 

major sources in similar categories to 

determine whether such technologies 

and practices could be considered 

generally available for the area source 

category at issue. Finally, as noted 

above, in determining GACT for a 

particular area source category, we 

consider the costs and economic 

impacts of available control 

technologies and management practices 

on that category. 

We are promulgating these national 

emission standards in response to a 

court-ordered deadline that requires 

EPA to sign final rules establishing 

emission standards for two source 

categories listed pursuant to section 

112(c)(3) and (k) by December 16, 2009 

(Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 01–1537, 

D.D.C., March 2006). We intend to 

publish a separate rulemaking in the 

Federal Register for the other source 

category due in December 2009. 

III. Summary of Changes Since 

Proposal 

This final rule contains several 

changes to the proposed rule as a result 

of public comments. The following 

sections present a summary of the 

changes to the proposed rule. We 

explain the reasons for these changes in 

detail in the summary of comments and 

responses (section V of this preamble). 

A. Applicability 

The final rule applies to any prepared 

feeds manufacturing facility that 

produces animal feed products (not 

including cat and dog feed products) 

and uses a material containing 

chromium or a material containing 

manganese. In light of questions raised 

concerning the scope of sources covered 

by this area source rule, we revised 

several definitions in the rule and added 

other definitions. The prepared feeds 

manufacturing area source category is 

identified by NAICS code 311119, 

‘‘Other Animal Food Manufacturing.’’ 

This NAICS code includes 

establishments primarily engaged in 

manufacturing animal feed (except dog 

and cat) from ingredients, such as 

grains, oilseed mill products, and meat 

products. The NAICS definition also 

contains a list of over 40 specific animal 

feed processes that are included in the 

NAICS code. First, we added a 

definition of ‘‘animal feed,’’ and defined 

that term to include all of the products 

in NAICS code 311119. This definition 

also clarifies that dog and cat feed 

products are not considered animal 

feed, consistent with the NAICS 

definition. The final rule, therefore, 

applies not only to ‘‘traditional’’ feed 

products, but also to animal feed 

ingredients, supplements, premixes, 

concentrates, and other products 

included in the definition of NAICS 

code 311119. Second, we revised the 

definition of a ‘‘prepared feed 

manufacturing facility’’ to include the 

concept of ‘‘primarily engaged.’’ To 

meet the definition of a prepared feeds 

manufacturing facility, a facility must be 

‘‘primarily engaged’’ in the production 

of animal feed. We identified that 

primarily engaged in the production of 

animal feed means that the animal feed 

makes up at least half of the facility’s 

annual production of all products. The 

definition of prepared feed 

manufacturing facility explicitly states 

that facilities primarily engaged in 

feeding animals are not prepared feed 

manufacturing facilities. We also added 

definitions for ‘‘a material containing 

chromium’’ and ‘‘a material containing 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
524 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

manganese.’’ ‘‘A material containing 

chromium’’ is defined as any material 

that contains chromium in an amount 

greater than 0.1 percent by weight, and 

‘‘a material containing manganese’’ is 

defined as any material that contains 

manganese in an amount greater than 1 

percent by weight. We added a 

requirement to provide for the situation 

where a facility starts using a material 

containing chromium or manganese 

after the applicable compliance date. 

Specifically, facilities that are not 

subject to the rule but start adding 

materials containing chromium or 

manganese in the future become subject 

to the rule at the time they begin adding 

these HAP. While the rule does not 

apply to prepared feeds manufacturing 

facilities that do not use any materials 

containing chromium or manganese, we 

added provisions that make it clear that 

facilities that stop using all materials 

containing chromium and manganese at 

a later date are no longer subject to the 

rule. 

B. Standards and Compliance 

Requirements 

The final rule retains the specific 

housekeeping management practices 

discussed in the proposed rule. Those 

management practices must reduce dust 

(use industrial vacuum, remove dust 

from walls and ledges, keep doors shut). 

The only change we made to these 

provisions was to require that doors be 

kept shut except during normal ingress 

and egress, rather than the proposed 

requirement to keep doors shut ‘‘as 

practicable.’’ 

The final rule requires that a device 

be installed and operated at the loadout 

end of each bulk loader that loads 

products containing chromium or 

manganese to lessen fugitive emissions 

by reducing the distance between the 

loading arm and the truck or railcar. 

This is a change from the proposed 

requirements, which specified that 

‘‘drop filter socks’’ be used on bulk 

loaders. 

The final rule requires that emissions 

from the pelleting process at facilities 

with an average daily feed production 

level exceeding 50 tons per day (tpd) be 

collected and routed to a cyclone 

designed to achieve 95 percent or 

greater reduction in particulate matter 

(PM) emissions. This is a change from 

the proposed rule, which required a 

cyclone designed to achieve a 95 

percent reduction in particulate matter 

emissions less than 10 microns in 

diameter (PM10). To demonstrate that 

your cyclone is designed to achieve a 95 

percent reduction in PM emissions, the 

final rule provides three different 

options: (1) Manufacturer’s 

specifications certifying that the cyclone 

is designed to achieve 95 percent PM 

reduction, (2) certification by a 

professional engineer or responsible 

official that the cyclone is designed to 

achieve a 95 percent reduction in PM 

emissions, or (3) a Method 5 

performance test to demonstrate that the 

cyclone can achieve a 95 percent 

reduction in PM emissions. 

The proposed rule required that the 

pressure drop across the cyclone be 

monitored to demonstrate that the 

device was in good condition and 

operating properly. The final rule 

expands the monitoring options to 

include other measures that indicate 

proper flow through the cyclone. 

Specifically, the final rule allows 

monitoring of inlet flow rate, inlet 

velocity, pressure drop, or fan 

amperage. 

C. Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

The final rule requires that all sources 

that have an average daily feed 

production level of 50 tpd or less to 

keep production records. These 

facilities must also submit their initial 

average daily feed production level in 

the Notification of Compliance Status 

report. 

We added recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements associated with 

the new options on demonstrating 

cyclone performance efficiency 

(certification by professional engineer or 

responsible official, or testing). We also 

added provisions that require facilities 

that discontinue the use of all materials 

containing chromium and manganese to 

notify the Agency that they are no 

longer subject to the rule. 

D. Definitions 

As discussed above, definitions for 

animal feed, a material containing 

chromium, a material containing 

manganese, and prepared feeds 

manufacturing facility were added or 

modified. The definition of filter drop 

sock was removed, as this term is no 

longer used in the final rule. 

IV. Summary of Final Standards 

A. What Are the Applicability 

Provisions and Compliance Dates? 

Subpart DDDDDDD standards apply 

to each new or existing prepared feeds 

manufacturing facility that is an area 

source and uses a material containing 

chromium or a material containing 

manganese. A prepared feeds 

manufacturing facility is a facility where 

animal feed (as defined in the rule) 

makes up at least half of the facility’s 

annual production of all products. A 

material containing chromium is any 

material that contains chromium in an 

amount greater than 0.1 percent by 

weight, and a material containing 

manganese is any material that contains 

manganese in an amount greater than 1 

percent by weight. 

All existing area source facilities 

subject to this rule are required to 

comply with the rule requirements no 

later than January 5, 2012. A new source 

is any affected source that commenced 

construction or reconstruction after July 

27, 2009. All new sources are required 

to comply with the rule requirements by 

January 5, 2010 or upon startup, 

whichever is later. 

Prepared feeds manufacturing 

facilities that do not use any materials 

containing chromium or manganese are 

not subject to this rule. If a facility starts 

using a material containing chromium 

or manganese after the applicable 

compliance date, they will be required 

to comply at the time that they start 

using such materials. Also, if a facility 

stops using all materials containing 

chromium and manganese, they are no 

longer subject to the rule and should 

notify EPA or the delegated authority of 

the change. 

B. What Are the Final Standards? 

The final requirements, which apply 

to all new and existing sources, consist 

of equipment standards and 

management practices. There are two 

general management practices that 

apply in all areas where materials 

containing chromium or manganese are 

stored, used, or handled. The first is to 

perform housekeeping measures to 

minimize excess dust that could contain 

chromium or manganese. The specific 

measures required by the rule are: (1) 

Use either an industrial vacuum system 

or manual sweeping to reduce the 

amount of dust, (2) at least once per 

month, remove dust from walls, ledges, 

and equipment using low pressure air or 

by other means, and then sweep or 

vacuum the area, and (3) keep doors 

shut except during normal ingress and 

egress. 

The second general management 

practice is the requirement to maintain 

and operate all process equipment that 

stores, processes, or contains chromium 

or manganese in accordance with 

manufacturers’ specifications and in a 

manner to minimize dust creation. 

There are also requirements that are 

specific to certain areas of the plant or 

processes at all new and existing 

sources. These requirements are: 

• For the storage area, all raw 

materials containing chromium or 

manganese must be stored in closed 

containers. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 525 

• For mixing operations, materials 

containing chromium or manganese 

must be added to the mixer in a manner 

to reduce emissions, and the mixer must 

be covered at all times when mixing is 

occurring, except when materials are 

being added. 

• For bulk loading processes where 

prepared feeds products containing 

chromium or manganese are loaded into 

trucks or railcars, you must use a device 

at the loadout end of each bulk loader 

to lessen fugitive emissions by reducing 

the distance between the loading arm 

and the truck or railcar. 

In addition to the above requirements 

that apply to all facilities, new and 

existing facilities with average daily 

feed production levels exceeding 50 tpd 

are required to install and operate a 

cyclone to reduce emissions from 

pelleting and pellet cooling operations. 

The average daily feed production level 

means the average amount of prepared 

feed product produced each operating 

day over an annual period. The initial 

determination of the average daily feed 

production level is based on the oneyear period prior to the compliance date 

for existing sources, or the design rate 

for new sources. Subsequent average 

daily feed production levels are then 

determined annually and are based on 

the amount of animal feed product 

produced in the calendar year divided 

by the number of days in which the 

production processes were in operation. 

Facilities with average daily feed 

production levels of 50 tpd or less are 

required to submit production 

information in their Notification of 

Compliance Status report and keep 

records documenting their animal feed 

production levels. 

For the pelleting operations at 

facilities with daily pelleting production 

levels exceeding 50 tpd, the final rule 

requires that PM emissions be collected 

and routed to a cyclone that is designed 

to achieve 95 percent or greater 

reduction in PM. There are three ways 

you can demonstrate that your cyclone 

is designed to achieve 95 percent 

reduction in PM: (1) Manufacturer 

specifications that certifying the cyclone 

is designed to achieve 95 percent 

reduction in PM emissions; (2) 

certification by a professional engineer 

or responsible official that the cyclone 

is designed to achieve a 95 or greater 

percent reduction in PM emissions; or 

(3) a one-time Method 5 performance 

test to demonstrate that the cyclone can 

achieve a 95 percent or greater 

reduction in PM emissions. 

In addition, the final rule requires that 

you establish an operating parameter 

range that indicates proper operation of 

the cyclone and then monitor this 

parameter at least once per day. The 

specific parameters allowed to be 

monitored are inlet flow rate, inlet 

velocity, pressure drop, or fan 

amperage. The range that represents 

proper operation of the cyclone must be 

provided by the manufacturer, 

determined as part of the engineering 

calculations demonstrating the design 

efficiency, or determined based on 

monitoring conducted during the 

performance test. 

The final rule also requires that you 

maintain the cyclone in accordance 

with manufacturer specifications. If 

manufacturer specifications are not 

available, you must develop and follow 

standard maintenance procedures. 

C. What Are the Compliance 

Requirements? 

For all new and existing sources, 

compliance with the final regulation is 

demonstrated through installation of the 

required equipment, adherence to the 

management practices specified in the 

rule, and keeping the required records 

and submitting the required 

notifications and reports described 

below. 

To ensure that the cyclone for the 

pelleting and pellet cooling process is 

operated properly at facilities with 

average daily feed production levels 

exceeding 50 tpd, the final rule requires 

that the cyclone be inspected quarterly 

for corrosion, erosion, or any other 

damage that could result in air inleakage, and that the inlet flow rate, 

inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan 

amperage be monitored and recorded 

daily to ensure that it is being operated 

in accordance with specified proper 

operating range. 

The final rule also requires that the 

devices required at the loadout end of 

a bulk loader to lessen fugitive 

emissions by containing the unloaded 

product within the device be inspected 

monthly to ensure that they are in good 

condition. 

D. What Are the Notification, 

Recordkeeping, and Reporting 

Requirements? 

All new and existing sources are 

required to comply with some 

requirements of the General Provisions 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are 

identified in Table 1 of the final rule. 

The General Provisions include specific 

requirements for notifications, 

recordkeeping, and reporting. Each 

facility is required to submit an Initial 

Notification and a one-time Notification 

of Compliance Status according to the 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 in the 

General Provisions. The Initial 

Notification, which is required to be 

submitted by affected sources not later 

than May 5, 2010, or 120 days after you 

become subject to the rule, whichever is 

later, must contain basic information 

about the facility and its operations. The 

Notification of Compliance Status, 

which is required to be submitted 120 

days after the compliance date, must 

contain a statement that the source has 

complied with all relevant standards. 

The Notification of Compliance Status 

also must include the inlet flow rate, 

inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan 

amperage range that constitutes proper 

operation of the cyclone used to reduce 

emissions from the pelleting and pellet 

cooling operations. Facilities not 

required to install and operate cyclones 

on their pelleting operations are 

required to submit documentation of 

their initial average daily feed 

production level. 

The final rule requires that records be 

kept of all notifications of compliance. 

The rule requires that records be kept 

documenting each inspection of a 

cyclone and each inspection of a device 

at the loadout end of a bulk loader. It 

also requires that the daily reading of 

cyclone inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, 

pressure drop, or fan amperage be 

recorded. In addition, records are 

required of any actions taken in 

response to findings of the inspections 

or monitoring results outside the proper 

operating range. Facilities with average 

daily feed production levels of 50 tpd or 

less are required to keep records of the 

annual production and the number of 

days of operation. 

The final rule includes the 

requirement to prepare, by March 1 of 

each year, and submit an annual 

compliance certification, a copy of 

which will need to be maintained on 

site. This report must contain a 

statement of whether the source has 

complied with all relevant standards 

and other requirements of the final rule. 

If a deviation from the standard 

occurred during the annual reporting 

period, or if an instance occurred where 

the cyclone inlet flow rate, inlet 

velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage 

was outside of the proper operating 

range submitted in the Notification of 

Compliance Status report, this 

information is required to be included 

in the annual report and the report 

needs to be submitted to the EPA 

Administrator or the designated 

authority. All records are required to be 

maintained in a form suitable and 

readily available for expeditious review, 

and kept for at least five years, the first 

two of which must be onsite. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
526 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1We denied the requests for extension by letter, 

copies of which are in the docket. These letters 

explain the reasons for the denial. These reasons are 

also provided in section V.A. 

V. Summary of Comments and 

Responses 

EPA received 16 public comment 

letters on the proposed rule. Five of 

these comment letters were requests for 

an extension to the comment period,1

leaving 11 comment letters that 

provided comments on the proposed 

rule. These comments were received 

from industry representatives, trade 

associations, state agencies, and an 

environmental organization. Sections 

V.A through V.G of this preamble 

provide responses to the public 

comments received on the proposed 

NESHAP. 

A. Rulemaking Process 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that the comment period be 

extended by 90 days. The commenters 

had concerns about the inputs to the 

impacts analysis and requested 

additional time to collect and provide 

factual information to the agency about 

the proposed rule’s provisions and their 

potential impact. 

Response: Due to a court-ordered 

deadline for promulgation of this rule 

(which at the time of proposal was 

November 16, 2009), we were unable to 

extend the comment period in response 

to these requests. Moreover, CAA 

section 307(d) requires that EPA provide 

a minimum of 30 days for public 

comment, and we provided that period 

for public comment. Furthermore, 

consistent with section 307(d), the 

proposed rule provided the public an 

opportunity to request a public hearing, 

and no party requested such a hearing. 

See 307(d)(5) (record remains open 30 

days after the date of the public 

hearing). 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

their concerns about the process that 

EPA used to develop its proposed 

national emission standard for prepared 

feeds manufacturers. The commenter 

believes that EPA did not provide ample 

due process in developing the proposed 

rule. The commenter pointed out that 

they requested a 90-day extension to the 

proposed rule’s comment period so that 

accurate information could be obtained 

to respond to the assumptions and 

estimates made by the agency. In this 

request, the commenter indicated that 

they highlighted five major areas of the 

proposed rule in which they believed 

EPA lacked critical information that 

directly affects the provisions within the 

proposed rule and its impact on 

prepared feeds manufacturers. Since 

EPA denied their request for extension 

of the comment period, the commenter 

indicated that they were left with what 

they believe was an inappropriately 

short 30-day comment period to 

respond to a proposed rule that, if 

promulgated as drafted, would have 

very significant operational and 

economic impacts on prepared feeds 

manufacturers. While cognizant of 

EPA’s court-ordered mandate to issue 

this national emission standard, the 

commenter believes that the agency’s 

actions related to gathering industry 

information, timing of the proposed rule 

and its response to their request for 

extension of the comment period are not 

indicative of a constructive or 

meaningful rulemaking process. 

Response: EPA complied with the 

requirements of 307(d) during this 

rulemaking process. We engaged 

industry prior to proposal by meeting 

and by telephone to discuss our 

rulemaking process and the information 

we intended to obtain through the 114 

survey. EPA strongly disagrees with the 

commenters’ assertion that EPA did not 

provide ample due process in 

developing the rule. 

CAA 307(d) requires EPA to publish 

a notice of proposed rulemaking and 

provide a minimum of 30 days for the 

public to comment on the proposal, and 

EPA complied with this requirement. 

EPA also identified a date for public 

hearing, if such hearing was requested 

by any member of the public. No 

member of the public requested a 

hearing, and therefore, a public hearing 

was not held. 

In conclusion, we believe that lines of 

communication with the industry were 

well established and open throughout 

the rulemaking process, and that the 

commenters had ample opportunity to 

participate. 

B. Applicability 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that the rule should clarify that a 

prepared feeds manufacturing facility is 

a facility that produces feeds, and not a 

facility that manufactures feed 

ingredients. One of the commenters 

explained that although feed ingredient 

companies may predominantly 

manufacture ingredients for animal feed 

and be classified under the NAICS Code 

defining the Prepared Feeds 

Manufacturing source category (NAICS 

311119), they may also produce feed 

ingredients for human and/or 

companion animal consumption. 

Response: EPA would like to clarify 

that, in addition to facilities that 

produce animal feed, facilities that 

manufacture feed ingredients are part of 

the prepared feeds manufacturing area 

source category. The category was 

identified in the original section 112(k) 

emissions inventory through the use of 

the Standard Industrial Classification 

(SIC) code 2048, Prepared Feeds 

Manufacturing, except cat and dog feed. 

As noted by the commenter, the NAICS 

code that covers this area source 

category is 311119, which is equivalent 

to the SIC code used in the original 

source category definition. The SIC/ 

NAICS code for the source category 

includes many segments of the prepared 

feed industry, including the production 

of feed ingredients. Specifically, in 

addition to many other segments of the 

industry, NAICS code 311119, and thus 

the prepared feeds manufacturing area 

source category, includes: 

• Feed concentrates, animal, 

manufacturing; 

• Feed premixes, animal, 

manufacturing; 

• Feed supplements, animal (except 

cat, dog), manufacturing; 

• Micro and macro premixes, 

livestock, manufacturing; 

• Mineral feed supplements (except 

cat, dog) manufacturing; and 

• Mineral supplements, animal 

(except cat, dog), manufacturing. 

Therefore, since facilities that 

manufacture feed ingredients are subject 

to the rule, we did not make the change 

suggested by the commenter. We did, 

however, make changes to the 

applicability provisions and definitions 

to clarify the various segments of the 

prepared feeds industry that are 

included in the source category and, 

therefore, subject to the rule (provided 

they use chromium or manganese). 

These changes include adding a 

definition of ‘‘animal feed,’’ which 

includes a list of all the products 

included under NAICS code 311119. 

While we recognize that chromium and 

manganese are not used in the 

production of many of the animal feed 

products in the definition, we believe 

that a complete listing eliminates the 

confusion of what types of processes are 

included in the source category. We 

would point out, however, that, even if 

a facility produces a listed animal feed 

product (e.g., earthworm feed and 

bedding), it is not subject to the rule if 

no chromium or manganese is used. 

One of the commenters raised the 

issue of a facility that produces a 

product covered by the rule along with 

other similar products that would not be 

covered by the rule. Specifically, the 

commenter mentions a facility that 

produces animal feed ingredients along 

with feed ingredients for humans and/ 

or cats and dogs. First, the NAICS code 

only includes establishments ‘‘primarily 

engaged in’’ manufacturing animal feed. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 527 

We have revised the definition of 

‘‘prepared feed manufacturing facility’’ 

to incorporate this concept. Specifically, 

the final rule contains the following 

definition. 

Prepared feeds manufacturing facility 

means a facility that is primarily engaged in 

manufacturing animal feed. A facility is 

primarily engaged in manufacturing animal 

feed if the production of animal feed 

comprises greater than 50 percent of the total 

production of the facility on an annual basis. 

Facilities primarily engaged in raising or 

feeding animals are not considered prepared 

feeds manufacturing facilities. 

Thus, a facility would be a prepared 

feeds manufacturing facility subject to 

the rule if the animal feed ingredients 

(not including ingredients for dog, cat, 

or human feed) make up more than half 

of its production. In addition, the final 

rule specifies that an affected source at 

a prepared feeds manufacturing facility 

only includes the collection of 

equipment and activities necessary to 

produce animal feed containing 

chromium or manganese. Therefore, if 

the ingredients for human and/or dog 

and cat feed at a facility primarily 

engaged in manufacturing animal feed 

were produced in equipment that is 

never used to produce ‘‘animal feed,’’ 

those production processes would not 

be part of the affected source and would 

not be subject to the requirements in the 

rule. While not specifically mentioned 

by the commenters, consideration of 

these applicability issues, along with 

comments related to the number of 

facilities in the source category, caused 

us to clarify that prepared feeds 

manufacturing at farms and animal feed 

lots is not part of this source category. 

Facilities ‘‘primarily engaged’’ in raising 

or feeding animals are listed under 

different NAICS codes (e.g., 112210— 

Hog and Pig Farming, 112112—Cattle 

Feedlots, 112111—Beef Cattle Ranching 

and Farming) and were not part of the 

sources that formed the basis for the 

listing of the prepared feed 

manufacturing area source category. 

Comment: Five commenters stated 

that the rule should only apply to 

prepared feeds manufacturing facilities 

that use or emit chromium compounds 

or manganese compounds above a 

specified threshold. The commenters 

claimed that such an approach would 

focus attention on facilities that are 

more significant emitters of chromium 

and manganese and will avoid requiring 

extremely small facilities to comply 

with the rule with little environmental 

benefit. The commenters suggested 

several different threshold levels. One 

commenter recommended a threshold 

based on established Superfund 

Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

of 1986 (SARA) Tier II threshold 

quantities (10,000 pounds per year), 

while another suggested 2,000 pounds 

per year based on levels determined to 

be insignificant under the title V 

program. Another commenter noted that 

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 

regulations require a covered facility to 

report only if it manufactures or 

processes non-exempt chromium and/or 

manganese compounds in quantities 

exceeding 25,000 pounds per year, and 

suggested that a threshold be 

established at this 25,000 pounds per 

year level. Still another commenter 

suggested a level of 1,000 pounds per 

day. One of the commenters 

recommended that, if such a threshold 

is established, compounds having a 

concentration of less than 1 percent of 

the chromium compounds or 

manganese compounds need not be 

counted by a facility when determining 

whether it has used a sufficient quantity 

to reach the threshold use level that 

establishes whether a facility is subject 

to the rule’s provisions. 

Response: Although several 

commenters advocated for a usage 

threshold for chromium compounds and 

manganese compounds, below which a 

facility would be exempt, we are not 

adopting any exemptions. Prepared 

Feeds Manufacturing is one of the area 

source categories needed to meet the 

section 112(c)(3) requirement that we 

subject to regulation, (i.e., area source 

categories representing 90 percent of the 

emissions of chromium and 

manganese). We reviewed the listing 

decision for this area source category 

and did not identify any information 

suggesting that small sources were not 

included in the listing decision. As 

such, we do not believe we can satisfy 

our requirement to regulate sources 

representing 90 percent of the emissions 

of Prepared Feeds Manufacturing urban 

HAP unless we subject all sources that 

emit those HAP to the rule. 

We recognize that the Prepared Feeds 

Manufacturing source category is 

comprised of a large number of 

relatively small facilities. Although area 

sources individually may be considered 

low-emitting sources, collectively, they 

are not. The commenter’s suggestion 

fails to address the requirement of 

section 112(c)(3), and, as discussed 

above, we previously determined that 

we need to subject the Prepared Feeds 

Manufacturing area source category to 

regulations in order to meet the 

requirement that EPA regulate area 

sources accounting for 90 percent of the 

emissions of the 30 urban HAP. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the applicability be changed to only 

include facilities that utilize pelletizing 

operations. The commenter noted that 

this would more adequately match the 

original group of prepared feeds 

manufacturers who were surveyed and 

those in the same class. The commenter 

also pointed out that the pelleting and 

pellet cooling process is the most 

significant source of pollutants, as it is 

estimated to emit 90 percent or more of 

the total chromium and manganese. 

Response: The basis for the listing of 

the area source category was not limited 

to emissions from pelleting. Thus, we 

conclude that the applicability should 

remain as proposed. 

C. Emission Standards 

1. General 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

EPA based the proposed standard on 

erroneous and misguided assumptions 

and estimates of emissions of chromium 

compounds and manganese compounds. 

This commenter had numerous 

objections to the impacts analyses (see 

section V.G) and how these analyses 

impacted EPA’s decision to regulate this 

category and specific emission points. 

Response: In section 112(c)(3) of the 

CAA, EPA is required to list ‘‘sufficient 

categories or subcategories of area 

sources to ensure that area source 

representing 90 percent of the emissions 

of the 30 urban HAP are subject to 

regulation.’’ An area source emissions 

inventory was compiled for each of the 

30 urban HAP and the area source 

categories identified that comprised 90 

percent of the emissions of each of these 

HAP. For the prepared feeds 

manufacturing source category, this 

inventory was based on data from the 

1990 TRI. The TRI is an EPA inventory 

of annual emissions self-reported by 

industry. Based on this information, 

EPA determined that chromium 

compounds emissions and manganese 

compounds emissions from prepared 

feeds manufacturing area sources 

needed to be regulated to achieve the 90 

percent requirement in CAA section 

112(c)(3). Therefore, the decision to 

regulate emissions of chromium 

compounds and manganese compounds 

from the prepared feeds manufacturing 

industry was based on emissions data 

submitted directly by the industry. The 

information and analyses referred to by 

the commenter were prepared to 

evaluate potential impacts of regulatory 

options. This information had no 

bearing on the basic decision to develop 

regulations for the prepared feeds 

manufacturing area source category. 

The commenter is also incorrect with 

respect to how emission points were 

identified for regulation. They assume 

that the information compiled for the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
528 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

2Specifically, CAA section 112(d)(3) sets the 

minimum degree of emission reduction that MACT 

standards must achieve, which is known as the 

MACT floor. For new sources, the degree of 

emission reduction shall not be less stringent than 

the emission control that is achieved in practice by 

the best controlled similar source, and for existing 

sources, the degree of emission reduction shall not 

be less stringent than the average emission 

limitation achieved by the best performing 12 

percent of the existing sources for which the 

Administrator has emissions information. CAA 

Section 112(d)(2) directs EPA to consider whether 

more stringent emission reductions (so called 

beyond-the-floor limits) are technologically 

achievable considering, among other things, the 

cost of achieving the emission reduction. 

3CAA Section 112(d)(5) also references CAA 

section 112(f). See CAA section 112(f)(5) (entitled 

‘‘Area Sources’’ and providing that EPA is not 

required to conduct a review or promulgate 

standards under CAA section 112(f) for any area 

source category or subcategory listed pursuant to 

CAA section 112(c)(3), and for which an emission 

standard is issued pursuant to CAA section 

112(d)(5)). 

impacts analyses was used as the basis 

to identify emission points for 

regulation. Rather, chromium and 

manganese emission points were 

identified primarily based on 

information submitted directly by the 

industry. Specifically, we conducted a 

survey of the industry, and responses 

were received for over 100 prepared 

feeds manufacturing facilities. In the 

responses to this survey, prepared feeds 

manufacturing facilities identified 

potential emission sources and reported 

controls and management practices that 

were being used. This information 

formed the basis for the decisions 

regarding the emission points and 

process areas for which standards were 

proposed. 

In conclusion, the commenter raised 

several issues on the impacts analyses 

(see section V.G below). However, the 

issues associated with these analyses 

did not influence the basic decision to 

regulate this source category or the 

decisions on the specific emission 

sources that would be regulated. 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that, ‘‘* * * The legislative history of 

§ 112 explains that Congress intended 

GACT standards to reflect ‘methods, 

practices and techniques which are 

commercially available and appropriate 

for application by sources in the 

category considering economic impacts 

and technical capabilities of the firms to 

operate and maintain emission control 

systems’.’’ 

The commenter also asserted that, 

although EPA used its discretion to 

issue GACT standards and that 

§ 112(d)(5) authorizes EPA to do so, that 

decision is subject to administrative law 

requirements. The commenter asserted 

that EPA’s decision is arbitrary and 

capricious because that decision was 

not supported with a rational 

explanation. 

Response: As the commenter 

recognizes, in CAA section 112(d)(5), 

Congress gave EPA explicit authority to 

issue alternative emission standards for 

area sources. Specifically, CAA section 

112(d)(5), which is entitled ‘‘Alternative 

standard for area sources,’’ provides: 

With respect only to categories and 

subcategories of area sources listed pursuant 

to subsection (c) of this section, the 

Administrator may, in lieu of the authorities 

provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (f) 

of this section, elect to promulgate standards 

or requirements applicable to sources in such 

categories or subcategories which provide for 

the use of generally available control 

technologies or management practices by 

such sources to reduce emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants. 

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

added). 

There are two critical aspects to CAA 

section 112(d)(5). First, CAA section 

112(d)(5) applies only to those 

categories and subcategories of area 

sources listed pursuant to CAA section 

112(c). The commenter does not dispute 

that EPA listed the area source category 

noted above pursuant to CAA section 

112(c)(3). Second, CAA section 

112(d)(5) provides that, for area sources 

listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c), 

EPA ‘‘may, in lieu of’’ the authorities 

provided in CAA section 112(d)(2) and 

112(f), elect to promulgate standards 

pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5). CAA 

Section 112(d)(2) provides that emission 

standards established under that 

provision ‘‘require the maximum degree 

of reduction in emissions’’ of HAP (also 

known as maximum achievable control 

technology or MACT). CAA section 

112(d)(3), in turn, defines what 

constitutes the ‘‘maximum degree of 

reduction in emissions’’ for new and 

existing sources. See CAA section 

112(d)(3).2 Webster’s dictionary defines 

the phrase ‘‘in lieu of’’ to mean ‘‘in the 

place of’’ or ‘‘instead of.’’ See Webster’s 

II New Riverside University (1994). 

Thus, CAA section 112(d)(5) authorizes 

EPA to promulgate standards under 

CAA section 112(d)(5) that provide for 

the use of GACT, instead of issuing 

MACT standards pursuant to CAA 

section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3). The statute 

does not set any condition precedent for 

issuing standards under CAA section 

112(d)(5) other than that the area source 

category or subcategory at issue must be 

one that EPA listed pursuant to CAA 

section 112(c), which is the case here.3

We disagree with the commenter’s 

assertion that we must provide a 

rationale for issuing GACT standards 

under section 112(d)(5), instead of 

MACT standards. Had Congress 

intended that EPA first conduct a MACT 

analysis for each area source category, 

Congress would have stated so expressly 

in section 112(d)(5). Congress did not 

require EPA to conduct any MACT 

analysis, floor analysis or beyond-thefloor analysis before the Agency could 

issue a section 112(d)(5) standard. 

Rather, Congress authorized EPA to 

issue GACT standards for area source 

categories listed under section 112(c), 

and that is precisely what EPA has done 

in this rulemaking. 

Although EPA has no obligation to 

justify why it is issuing a GACT 

standard for an area source category as 

opposed to a MACT standard, we did 

explain at proposal that being able to 

consider costs and economic impacts is 

important when establishing standards 

for a category like this with many small 

sources. Furthermore, EPA must set a 

GACT standard that is consistent with 

the requirements of CAA section 

112(d)(5) and have a reasoned basis for 

its GACT determination. As explained 

in the proposed rule and below. The 

legislative history supporting section 

112(d)(5) provides that GACT is to 

encompass: 

‘‘* * * methods, practices and techniques 

which are commercially available and 

appropriate for application by the sources in 

the category considering economic impacts 

and the technical capabilities of the firms to 

operate and maintain the emissions control 

systems.’’ 

The discussion in the Senate report 

clearly provides that EPA may consider 

costs in determining what constitutes 

GACT for the area source category. 

Congress plainly recognized that area 

sources differ from major sources, 

which is why Congress allowed EPA to 

consider costs in setting GACT 

standards for area sources under section 

112(d)(5), but did not allow that 

consideration in setting MACT floors for 

major sources pursuant to section 

112(d)(3). This important dichotomy 

between section 112(d)(3) and section 

112(d)(5) provides further evidence that 

Congress sought to do precisely what 

the title of section 112(d)(5) states, i.e., 

provide EPA the authority to issue 

‘‘alternative standards for area sources.’’ 

Notwithstanding the commenter’s 

claim, EPA properly issued standards 

for the area source categories at issue 

here under section 112(d)(5), and in 

doing so provided a reasoned basis for 

its selection of GACT for these area 

source categories. As explained in the 

proposed rule, EPA evaluated the 

control technologies and management 

practices that reduce HAP emissions at 

Prepared Feeds Manufacturing area 

source facilities. In its evaluation, EPA 

used information on pollution 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 529 

prevention from industry trade 

associations, and reviewed operating 

permits to identify the emission controls 

and management practices that are 

currently used to control volatile and 

particulate HAP emissions. We also 

considered technologies and practices at 

major and area sources in similar 

categories. 

Finally, even though not required, 

EPA did provide a rationale for why it 

set a GACT standard in the proposed 

rule. In the proposal, we explained that 

the facilities in the source categories at 

issue are already well controlled for the 

urban HAP for which the source 

category was listed pursuant to section 

112(c)(3). Consideration of costs and 

economic impacts proves especially 

important for the well-controlled area 

sources at issue in this final action. 

Given the current, well controlled 

emission levels, a MACT floor 

determination, where costs cannot be 

considered, could result in only 

marginal reductions in emissions at very 

high costs for modest incremental 

improvement in control for the area 

source category. 

Comment: One commenter questioned 

why EPA was not considering 

regulation for all HAP emissions. The 

commenter explained that, as 

documented in the record for this 

rulemaking, that Prepared Feed 

Manufacturing facilities often generate 

emissions other than manganese, such 

as arsenic and arsenic compounds, 

benzene, beryllium and beryllium 

compounds, cadmium and cadmium 

compounds, chlorine, cobalt and cobalt 

compounds, formaldehyde, hexane, 

hydrochloric acid, hydrogen fluoride, 

lead and lead compounds, mercury and 

mercury compounds, naphthalene, 

nickel and nickel compounds, 

polycyclic organic matter, selenium and 

selenium compounds, and toluene. The 

commenter acknowledged that 

management practices and PM controls 

required by the rule will likely reduce 

other metal HAP emissions to some 

degree; however they indicated that the 

Agency failed to quantify this benefit. 

The commenter also indicated that EPA 

should consider controls for other HAPs 

that will not be co-controlled with the 

manganese and chromium. 

Response: Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the 

CAA requires EPA to identify at least 30 

HAP emitted from area sources that 

pose the greatest threat to public health 

in the largest number of urban areas (the 

‘‘Urban HAP’’) and identify the area 

source categories emitting such 

pollutants that are or will be listed 

pursuant to section 112(c)(3). Section 

112(c)(3), in relevant part, provides: 

The Administrator shall * * *, pursuant to 

subsection (k)(3)(B) of this section, list, based 

on actual or estimated aggregate emissions of 

a listed pollutant or pollutants, sufficient 

categories or subcategories of area sources to 

ensure that area sources representing 90 

percent of the area source emissions of the 

30 hazardous air pollutants that present the 

greatest threat to public health in the largest 

number of urban areas are subject to 

regulation under this section. 

Thus, section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to 

list sufficient categories or subcategories 

of area sources to ensure that area 

sources representing 90 percent of the 

area source emissions of the 30 urban 

HAP are subject to regulation. Section 

112(d)(1) requires the Administrator to 

promulgate regulations establishing 

emissions standards for each area source 

category of HAP listed for regulation 

pursuant to section 112(c). 

EPA identified the 30 Urban HAP that 

posed the greatest threat to public 

health in the Integrated Urban Air 

Toxics Strategy (Strategy). In the 

Strategy and subsequent Federal 

Register notices, EPA listed the area 

source categories necessary to meet the 

90 percent requirement in section 

112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), and one of those 

categories was the Prepared Feeds 

Manufacturing area source category. 

We have interpreted sections 112(c)(3) 

and 112(k)(3)(B) together to require EPA 

to regulate only those Urban HAP 

emissions for which an area source 

category is listed pursuant to section 

112(c)(3), not all urban HAP or all 

section 112(b) HAP emitted from a 

listed area source category. As stated 

above, section 112(k)(3)(B) addresses the 

strategy to control HAP from area 

sources in urban areas and the focus of 

the strategy as it relates to control of 

area sources is on the 30 HAP that pose 

the greatest threat to public health in the 

largest number of urban areas. Section 

112(c)(3) specifically references section 

112(k)(3)(B) as the basis for selecting 

area sources for listing to satisfy the 

Agency’s responsibility for regulating 

urban HAP emissions from area sources. 

Under these provisions, area sources 

categories are listed because they emit 

one or more of the 30 listed Urban HAP 

and the Agency has identified the 

category as one that is necessary to 

satisfy the requirement to subject area 

sources representing 90 percent of the 

area source emissions of the 30 urban 

HAP to regulation. 

EPA listed the Prepared Feeds 

Manufacturing area source category 

pursuant to sections 112(c)(3) and 

112(k)(3)(B). We must regulate only the 

chromium and manganese emissions 

from the Prepared Feeds Manufacturing 

area source category, as these are the 

urban HAP emissions for which the 

category was listed to meet the 90 

percent requirement in sections 

112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B). See 112(c)(3) 

(EPA must ‘‘ensure that area sources 

representing 90 percent of the area 

source emissions of the 30 hazardous air 

pollutants * * * are subject to 

regulation.’’). We recognize that the 

source category emits other section 

112(b) HAP, including other urban HAP; 

however, as stated above, sections 

112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B) do not require 

the Agency to regulate the area source 

category for any HAP other than those 

for which the category was listed. As to 

the other urban HAP emitted from this 

category, we have identified other area 

source categories that emit these urban 

HAP and subjecting those area source 

categories to regulation will satisfy the 

requirement to subject to regulation area 

sources that account for 90 percent of 

the area source emissions of those urban 

HAP. 

While the Agency is not required to 

regulate all section 112(b) HAP from 

area sources listed pursuant to section 

112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B), section 112 

of the CAA does not preclude EPA from 

regulating other HAP from these area 

sources at our discretion and in 

appropriate circumstances. Section 

112(d)(5) states that, for area sources 

listed pursuant to section 112(c), the 

Administrator may, in lieu of section 

112(d)(2) ‘‘MACT’’ standards, 

promulgate standards or requirements 

‘‘applicable to sources’’ which provide 

for the use of GACT or management 

practices ‘‘to reduce emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants.’’ This 

provision does not limit EPA’s authority 

to regulate only those urban HAP 

emissions for which the category is 

needed to achieve the 90 percent 

requirement in sections 112(k)(3)(B) and 

112(c)(3). In fact, in two other area 

source rules, in addition to regulating 

the urban HAP that were necessary to 

satisfy the 90 percent requirement in 

sections 112(k)(3)(B) and 112(c)(3), we 

regulated additional section 112(b) 

HAP. Specifically, in the chemical 

manufacturing area source rule and the 

paint and allied products area source 

rule, although not required, we 

exercised our discretion to regulate 

other section 112(b) HAP beyond the 

urban HAP for which the categories 

were listed under section 112(c)(3) and 

(k)(3)(B), including non-urban section 

112(b) HAP. The chemical 

manufacturing area source rule and the 

paints and allied products area source 

rule both involve specific circumstances 

which EPA believes justify regulating 

organic and metal section 112(b) HAP in 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
530 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

addition to the specific urban HAP 

needed to meet the 90 percent 

requirement in section 112(c)(3) and 

(k)(3)(B), which served as the basis for 

the listing of the categories. In the 

chemical manufacturing area source 

rule, which establishes standards for 9 

area source categories, we regulated 

such HAP because the emission 

standards designed to control the urban 

HAP for which the categories were 

listed were equally effective at removing 

other urban and non-urban metal and 

organic HAP, and demonstrating 

compliance for total HAP was less 

burdensome than demonstrating 

compliance for speciated HAP for those 

sources required to install add-on 

controls. In the paint and allied 

products area source rule, we included 

emission standards for HAP beyond the 

urban HAP for which the category was 

listed because the emission standards 

designed to control those urban HAP 

would also control other urban and nonurban metal and organic HAP. 

In conclusion, we believe that we 

have appropriately exercised our 

discretion in regulating only the 

chromium and manganese emissions 

from the prepared feeds manufacturing 

area source category. Therefore, we did 

not make any changes in the final rule 

based on this comment. 

2. Housekeeping Management Practices 

Comment: One commenter claimed 

that the Agency’s proposed 

housekeeping practices are 

‘‘overreaching,’’ ‘‘unfounded,’’ and 

‘‘unnecessary.’’ The commenter 

believed that EPA had no basis for 

correlating housekeeping practices with 

ambient air concentrations of chromium 

compounds or manganese compounds. 

The commenter also had concerns 

with regard to two of the specific plantwide housekeeping requirements 

proposed. The commenter argued that 

the requirement that dust be removed 

from walls, ledges and equipment at 

least once per month is not 

performance-orientated and fails to 

consider individual facility operations 

or existing management practices. The 

commenter also disagreed with the 

Agency’s assertion that air flow through 

open doors ‘stirs-up’ dust and causes 

chromium compounds and manganese 

compounds to be emitted into the 

atmosphere. Therefore, the commenter 

opposed the proposed requirement that 

affected facilities keep doors shut, as 

practicable. In addition, the commenter 

also expressed concern over the 

facilities ability to comply with this 

requirement as they questioned what 

would be the parameters set/used to 

determine that having a door shut is not 

practicable. 

The commenter noted that prepared 

feeds manufacturing facilities already 

comply with Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration’s (OSHA) Grain 

Handling Standard (29 CFR 1910.272) 

and the Food and Drug Administration’s 

(FDA’s) Current Good Manufacturing 

Practices (CGMPs) for Medicated Feeds 

(21 CFR part 225), and that they are 

regularly inspected by Federal and State 

authorities. Because of this, the 

commenter believed that EPA’s 

proposed housekeeping practices are 

unnecessary. The commenter provided 

more detailed descriptions of these two 

programs. 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration’s (OSHA) Grain Handling 

Standard (29 CFR 1910.272): This standard 

requires facilities to ‘‘develop and implement 

a written housekeeping program that 

establishes the frequency and method(s) 

determined best to reduce accumulations of 

fugitive grain dust on ledges, floors, 

equipment and other exposed surfaces’’ 

throughout the entire facility. OSHA’s 

housekeeping requirements are performanceoriented, allowing facilities the flexibility to 

design housekeeping programs to achieve 

compliance through methods that are most 

effective for individual facilities and 

operations. 

FDA’s Current Good Manufacturing 

Practices (CGMPs) for Medicated Feeds (21 

CFR 225): The vast majority of prepared feed 

manufacturers are mandated to comply with 

CGMPs that require buildings and equipment 

be maintained and kept in a reasonably clean 

and orderly manner to avoid the potential 

adulteration of feed products. Regarding this 

provision, FDA’s compliance program 

guidance states, ‘‘Accumulated dust or 

residue will be considered objectionable 

when there is a likelihood that the material 

could contribute to significant contamination 

of animal feed.’’ Similar to the OSHA 

requirement, FDA’s housekeeping standard 

also is performance-orientated. The CGMP 

regulations allow facilities to implement 

those housekeeping practices that are 

effective for their individual operations and 

achieve compliance with the standard. 

Another commenter recommended 

that instead of the specific 

requirements, facilities be required to 

maintain a management plan to 

minimize excess dust. The commenter 

said that this plan can be maintained on 

site, available for review by the 

delegated authority. 

Response: The commenter claimed 

that EPA has no basis for correlating 

housekeeping practices with ambient air 

concentrations. Under section 

112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA, EPA 

determined that chromium and 

manganese were 2 of the 30 HAP which, 

as the result of emissions from area 

sources, pose the greatest threat to 

public health in the largest number of 

urban areas. Section 112(c)(3) of the 

CAA requires EPA to list sufficient 

categories or subcategories of area 

sources to ensure that there are sources 

representing 90 percent of the emissions 

of each of the 30 urban HAP are subject 

to regulation. We determined that the 

chromium and manganese emissions 

from prepared feeds manufacturing area 

sources need to be subject to regulation 

to meet this 90 percent requirement for 

these two HAP. Additionally, under 

CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to 

promulgate standards that represent 

GACT. As cited above, the legislative 

history supporting section 112(d)(5) 

provides that GACT is to encompass: 

‘‘* * * methods, practices and techniques 

which are commercially available and 

appropriate for application by the sources in 

the category considering economic impacts 

and the technical capabilities of the firms to 

operate and maintain the emissions control 

systems.’’ 

Section 112(d)(5) calls for EPA to 

establish GACT standards that are 

designed to reduce HAP emissions. 

Nothing in these provisions requires 

EPA to justify GACT regulations based 

on a correlation between ambient 

concentrations and emissions from a 

specific emissions source. 

We based our GACT determinations 

on methods, practices, and techniques 

commonly employed in the prepared 

feeds manufacturing industry. Based on 

the available information, we concluded 

that every prepared feeds manufacturing 

facility performed general housekeeping 

practices and maintained equipment in 

an effort to reduce dust and thus, 

particulate emissions. We appreciate the 

information provided by the commenter 

that confirms this conclusion, along 

with the details of the regulatory 

programs that require these measures. 

We disagree with the commenter that 

including GACT housekeeping practices 

is unnecessary. As noted above, section 

112(d)(5) requires EPA to establish 

national standards. The fact that OSHA 

and FDA have similar requirements has 

no relevance here, especially since they 

allow facilities to establish individual 

(and potentially dissimilar) standards. 

Therefore, the final rule maintains 

specific housekeeping requirements to 

minimize dust and does not include a 

requirement to develop site-specific 

management practices. 

As noted above, we had information 

prior to proposal that made it clear that 

housekeeping practices to minimize 

dust were widespread. We concluded 

that GACT was ‘‘continual 

housekeeping practices to reduce dust 

that can contain chromium compounds 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 531 

and manganese compounds.’’ (74 FR 

36985) However, we did not have 

information from a good cross section of 

the industry on specific practices 

employed. We solicited information 

from one of the major prepared feeds 

manufacturers to identify some specific 

practices employed in the industry, and 

included them in the proposed rule. At 

proposal, we acknowledged the 

potential limitations of the examples of 

practices proposed, and specifically 

requested comment on these measures. 

We also requested additional general 

management practices commonly 

employed throughout the industry. 

The commenter expressed concerns 

with regard to the proposed 

housekeeping practices, but they were 

not responsive to our request for 

additional practices used throughout the 

industry. While the commenter did not 

provide any suggestions to address their 

concerns (other than the suggestion to 

remove the practices entirely), we 

recognize the issues raised in the 

comments provided on the specific 

management practices and have 

considered them. 

The commenter stated that the 

requirement that dust be removed from 

walls, ledges and equipment at least 

once per month is not performanceorientated and fails to consider 

individual facility operations or existing 

management practices. It is clear that all 

prepared feeds manufacturing facilities 

must remove dust from walls, ledges, 

and equipment periodically in order to 

comply with the OSHA requirement. 

The commenter did not provide any 

alternative to the monthly requirement, 

and our follow-up calls to feed 

manufacturing facilities indicated that 

monthly is a reasonable time frame. In 

fact, these calls show that many areas of 

the plant are cleaned more frequently 

than monthly. Therefore, the final rule 

retains the requirement to remove dust 

from walls, ledges, and equipment on a 

monthly basis. 

The proposed requirement to keep 

doors closed was the result of a 

recommendation from a prepared feeds 

manufacturer. However, we appreciate 

the concerns regarding potential 

compliance confusion with the 

proposed requirement to keep doors 

closed ‘‘as practicable.’’ Therefore, the 

final rule states that doors must remain 

closed ‘‘except during normal ingress 

and egress.’’ 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the general housekeeping 

requirements would apply to all areas of 

the affected facility, even though all 

areas of the affected facility may not be 

involved with the storage and/or use of 

chromium compounds or manganese 

compounds. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter that there is no need to 

perform these management practices in 

areas where chromium or manganese 

are never present. Therefore, we have 

changed this language in the final rule 

to specify that the general management 

practices apply in ‘‘all areas of the 

affected source where materials 

containing chromium or manganese are 

stored, used, or handled.’’ 

3. Mixers 

Comment: One commenter urged the 

Agency to eliminate the requirement 

that affected facilities cover the mixer 

where materials containing chromium 

compounds or manganese compounds 

are added at all times when mixing is 

occurring, except when the materials are 

being added to the mixer. The 

commenter suggested that this 

requirement implies that chromium 

compounds or manganese compounds 

are being emitted into the atmosphere 

directly from the mixer when mixing 

occurs, and they do not believe that this 

is true. The commenter stated that if 

chromium and manganese are released 

from a mixer, they are captured within 

the facility in which the mixer is 

operating and not directly released to 

the atmosphere. The commenter 

explained that the facilities themselves 

are control devices. The commenter 

claimed that there was a lack of 

sufficient and compelling data to 

support a contention that openings in 

mixers are a source of emissions of 

chromium compounds or manganese 

compounds. The commenter believed 

that the technical background 

information considered by EPA in this 

rulemaking produced an unfounded 

correlation between mixer operation 

and chromium and manganese 

emissions. The commenter cited EPA’s 

2002 National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI) and noted that the data reviewed 

indicated no emissions of chromium 

compounds or manganese compounds 

from source classification codes 31227 

through 31237, which encompass 

mixing/blending operations at feed 

manufacturers. 

Response: The commenter stated that 

when chromium compounds or 

manganese compounds are released 

from the mixer they are not emitted to 

the atmosphere because the facilities 

themselves are control devices. We do 

not disagree that there may be situations 

where direct releases to the atmosphere 

from the mixing operations do not 

occur. In fact, of the facilities that 

reported information for mixing in 

response to our industry survey, over 60 

percent indicated that their processes 

are ‘‘closed’’ without direct vents to the 

atmosphere. However, the general 

ventilation of the building can allow 

chromium- and manganese-containing 

dust from the building to be emitted. 

Chromium and manganese dust created 

in the mixer that accumulates in the 

building could be emitted. Therefore, 

any measures to reduce the amount of 

dust in the building impacts emissions. 

We believe that the proposed measures 

to reduce dust generation from mixing 

will result in lower dust levels and, 

thus, lower emissions. 

The commenter further claimed that 

there was no evidence that openings in 

mixers are a source of emissions of 

chromium compounds or manganese 

compounds, and that the technical 

background information considered by 

EPA in this rulemaking produced an 

unfounded correlation between mixer 

operation and chromium and 

manganese emissions. However, we 

identified mixers as a source of 

emissions due to information submitted 

directly by the industry. Specifically, 

prepared feeds manufacturing facilities 

identified mixing as a potential 

emission source and reported associated 

add-on control devices and management 

practices in response to our industry 

survey. We reviewed the material 

submitted via this survey and agree that 

it is accurate and representative. 

Since some prepared feeds 

manufacturing facilities reported that 

emissions from mixing were vented to a 

control device, we evaluated whether 

add-on controls were GACT for mixing 

operations. The commenter is correct 

that no emissions were assigned directly 

to mixing in the 2002 NEI. However, we 

would note that over 60 percent of the 

manganese emissions in the 2002 NEI, 

and 90 percent of the chromium 

emissions, were not assigned to any 

specific operation, thus raising the 

possibility that some of these emissions 

are occurring from mixing operations. 

In order to evaluate whether it was 

cost effective to select add-on control as 

GACT, it was necessary to make 

assumptions based on engineering 

judgment to estimate emissions from 

mixing. While the commenter may 

disagree with the assumptions that were 

used to estimate these emissions, the 

result was the rejection of add-on 

control as GACT for mixing. 

To reiterate, the emission estimates 

that the commenter objects to were not 

a factor in establishing the proposed 

management practices as GACT. That 

determination was directly based on the 

information submitted in response to 

the survey. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
532 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

In conclusion, the commenter 

provided no information to suggest that 

the proposed measures were not 

generally available and commonly used 

by the facilities to reduce chromium- or 

manganese-containing dust from mixing 

operations at prepared feeds 

manufacturing facilities. The 

commenter also provided no 

information challenging our conclusion 

that the costs of the GACT standards in 

the final rule are reasonable. Therefore, 

no changes were made to the proposed 

requirements for mixing. 

4. Pelleting and Pellet Cooling 

Comment: One commenter supported 

requiring the option to select add-on 

control (cyclones) as GACT for facilities 

that produce less than 50 tpd of 

prepared feeds. The commenter points 

out that EPA determined that 

approximately 20 percent of existing 

facilities already had cyclones installed, 

and that the agency estimated that the 

cost effectiveness of requiring the 

remaining 80 percent to install controls 

would be around $1 million per ton of 

chromium and manganese compound 

emission reduction, $4,000 per ton of 

PM emission reduction, and $20,000 per 

ton of PM2.5 reduction, and that the 

annual cost of installing and operating 

a cyclone at one of these facilities would 

be around $58,000 per year. The 

commenter recognizes that EPA 

performed an economic impact 

assessment, which indicated that these 

annual costs could represent over 5 

percent of the total annual sales for a 

small facility, and that EPA concluded 

that ‘‘the adverse economic impacts do 

not justify a determination requiring 

cyclones for the small prepared feeds 

manufacturing subcategory.’’ The 

commenter states that, although this 

economic impact analysis is more 

instructive than mere reliance on cost 

effectiveness figures, the 5 percent of 

total annual sales threshold is arbitrary. 

The commenter states that EPA does not 

explain why the benefits of further 

reductions in PM, PM2.5, manganese 

compounds and chromium compounds, 

as well as other metal HAP emissions, 

are not sufficient to justify the costs of 

the controls. The commenter stated their 

belief that the GACT provision’s 

requirement of cost considerations does 

not preclude the need to consider the 

environmental benefits of the proposed 

rule in determining whether those costs 

are justified. 

Response: As noted by the 

commenter, we performed an economic 

impact assessment that indicated that 

the annual costs for fabric filters for 

bagging could represent over 5 percent 

of the total annual sales for a facility 

with less than 5 employees. We strongly 

disagree that a decision to reject 

controls that would result in costs that 

represent 5 percent of the total annual 

sales is arbitrary. This 5 percent value 

was a direct calculation of the small 

model plant cyclone costs divided by 

the average shipments per facility for 

facilities with less than 5 employees. 

While each GACT decision includes a 

variety of factors to take into account, 

we generally consider costs in excess of 

3 percent of sales to be significant and 

potentially economically damaging. 

Further, since we believe all of the 

facilities in the small facility 

subcategory are small businesses, we are 

even more sensitive to potentially 

detrimental economic impacts. We also 

disagree that we did not consider the 

environmental benefits. For this option, 

we estimated and considered the 

emission reductions of chromium, 

manganese, PM, and PM2.5. However, 

we determined that these emission 

reductions are not justified given the 

economic impacts. In conclusion, we 

believe our decision to reject the option 

to require add-on controls for pelleting 

operations at prepared feed 

manufacturers with daily production 

rates of 50 tpd or less is justified. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended that, since the 50 tpd 

production level determines if 

emissions must be controlled from the 

pelleting and pellet cooling operations, 

this level should be related to the 

amount of feed pelletized and not the 

total amount of feed produced by the 

entire facility. One of the commenters 

indicated that they are aware of several 

prepared feeds manufacturing facilities 

that do not pelletize feed, or that only 

pelletize a small percentage of the feed 

produced. 

Response: Under section 112(d)(1) of 

the CAA, EPA ‘‘may distinguish among 

classes, types, and sizes within a source 

category or subcategory in establishing 

such standards’’. As discussed at 

proposal (74 FR 36985), we observed 

differences between prepared feeds 

manufacturing facilities based on 

production levels and subcategorized 

the Prepared Feeds Manufacturing 

source category into ‘‘small’’ and 

‘‘large’’ facilities. The threshold used to 

distinguish between these subcategories 

was an average feed production level of 

50 tpd. We then independently 

determined GACT standards for each 

subcategory. Therefore, our 

subcategorization and GACT 

determinations were based on the 

separation of facilities according to total 

feed production levels, not pelleting 

feed production. Since the change 

suggested by the commenter is 

inconsistent with our subcategorization 

decision and analyses, we retained the 

proposed definition of the small and 

large subcategories based on total feed 

production levels. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the 50 tpy threshold 

be on an annual, rather than daily, basis. 

The commenter said that this could be 

the production level in a calendar year 

or a rolling 12-month production level. 

The commenter points out that an 

annual production level of 13,000 tons 

per year would be equivalent to 50 tpd, 

assuming an operating schedule of 260 

days per year. The commenter noted 

that the proposed daily rate did not 

appear to have any special significance, 

as it was calculated as an average of 

annual production. The commenter 

believed that an annual production rate 

would achieve the same objectives and 

would be easier than a daily production 

rate for facilities and for regulatory 

agencies to track. 

Response: We did not incorporate the 

commenters’ suggestion to change the 

threshold to an annual basis. In our 

determination of GACT, the data on the 

existence of controls were related to 

daily production levels. To determine 

an annual threshold from these data 

would require an assumption regarding 

the number of days of operation per 

year. We do not believe that calculating 

an annual rate based on a ‘‘typical’’ 

production schedule is reflective of 

varying production schedules that exist 

in the industry. Therefore, the final rule 

maintains the daily production level 

concept. Requiring owners and 

operators to maintain annual production 

data and the number of operating days, 

and then dividing the annual 

production by the number of operating 

days is no more difficult or burdensome 

for facilities or regulatory agencies than 

the approach recommended by the 

commenter. 

Comment: Two commenters 

maintained that the pelleting cyclones 

would not be able to reach the proposed 

design efficiency of 95 percent for 

PM10. The commenters believed that 

this level of efficiency would not be 

attainable under the conditions of the 

pelleting process. One commenter 

suggested the efficiency requirement be 

changed to 95 percent for total PM (up 

to 35 micron). The commenter included 

a chart from a cyclone manufacturer that 

showed the efficiency in removal of 

PM10 by a cyclone estimated at 90 

percent. The commenter continued that 

this level would not be expected to be 

reached under the conditions of the 

pelleting process with its high moisture 

and high temperature conditions. The 

commenter stated that a second control 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 533 

device such as a baghouse or a wet 

scrubber would be necessary to reach a 

capture efficiency of 95 percent for 

PM10. 

Response: In the proposed rule, GACT 

for the pelleting operation was 

determined to be the use of a cyclone to 

control emissions of chromium and 

manganese. We did not specify GACT as 

a specific control efficiency, 

concentration, or operating parameter. 

However, in order to establish criteria 

that represent a properly designed, 

operated, and maintained control 

device, it was necessary to establish 

requirements in the proposed rule on 

how the cyclone is designed and 

operated. Many respondents to the 

industry survey stated they use high 

efficiency cyclones to control the 

pelleting operations. The result is 

reduced emissions to the air and the 

capture of lost product that can be 

returned to the manufacturing 

operation. 

As a follow up to the industry survey 

responses, we contacted an industry 

representative (Docket No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0080–0010) that responded 

to our survey for several prepared feeds 

manufacturing facilities and asked about 

the level of efficiency that would be 

expected with high efficiency cyclones 

reported to be used to control the 

pelleting process. The representatives 

indicated that today’s high efficiency 

cyclones can be expected to get 99 

percent control of particulates, while 

older ones can be expected to achieve 

efficiencies in the ‘‘mid 90 percent’’ 

range. While background material 

gathered prior to proposal from vendors 

(Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0080– 

0034) show that high efficiency 

cyclones should be able to reach the 

proposed 95 percent efficiency level for 

PM10, we understand that the 

conditions of the pelleting process are 

not optimum. We contacted additional 

cyclone manufacturers after proposal, 

and some agreed with the commenters 

that cyclones designed to achieve 95 

percent efficiency level for PM10 for 

pelleting operations are not available. 

All of those contacted indicated that 

many older cyclones still being used in 

the industry would not meet the 

proposed 95 percent PM10 design 

requirement. It was not our intent to 

force prepared feeds manufacturers to 

replace older, well designed and 

properly operating cyclones with new 

high efficiency cyclones, particularly 

since the incremental emission 

reduction would be very low and the 

costs would be high (our estimates are 

that the capital cost of a new cyclone is 

between $50,000 to $100,000). The 

available information suggests that a 95 

percent efficiency design requirement is 

achievable for total PM. Therefore, we 

have changed the criterion in the final 

rule to require cyclones designed to 

achieve a 95 percent efficiency level for 

total PM, rather than for PM10. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended that the final rule provide 

explicit compliance alternatives to the 

requirement to operate a 95 percent 

control efficient cyclone. The 

commenter cites that other area source 

NESHAP, such as the Nonferrous 

Foundry NESHAP (Subpart ZZZZZZ), 

establish a limit of either 99.0 percent 

control for PM or an emission limit of 

0.01 grains per dry standard cubic foot 

(gr/dscf). The commenter is concerned 

that having 95 percent control efficient 

cyclone as the only compliance option 

for pelletizing operations would 

unfairly penalize a facility that has a 

pelletizing process with low 

uncontrolled emissions or a facility that 

uses other control equipment to achieve 

emissions reductions. 

Response: The proposed rule required 

that emissions from pelleting operations 

be captured and routed to a cyclone 

designed to reduce PM10 emissions by 

95 percent. The format of the rule is an 

equipment standard, and the 95 percent 

criterion is a design value, not an 

emission limitation. Therefore, there is 

no penalty for a facility with low 

uncontrolled emissions, provided that 

they have a cyclone designed to achieve 

95 percent reduction that is operated 

and maintained properly. 

Comment: A commenter requested 

clarification of whether PM or PM10 

emissions is considered a surrogate for 

HAP emission in the proposed rule. The 

commenter notes that the proposed rule 

requires that pelletizing operations at 

feed preparation facilities with daily 

production levels greater than 50 tpd be 

controlled by a cyclone designed to 

reduce PM10 emissions by 95 percent or 

greater, and that in several places in the 

preamble to the proposed rule that EPA 

indicates that PM emissions will be 

considered the surrogate for chromium 

and manganese. The commenter asked 

whether PM or PM10 is the surrogate 

pollutant for the proposed rule. The 

commenter points out that several other 

area source NESHAP consider PM to be 

the surrogate pollutant for HAP 

emissions such as Subpart ZZZZZZ 

(Aluminum, Copper, Nonferrous 

Foundries) and Subpart ZZZZZ (Iron 

and Steel Foundries). The commenter 

recommends that EPA clarify in the 

final rule whether the surrogate 

pollutant is PM or PM10 and include a 

justification for the choice of surrogate. 

Further, the commenter recommends 

that, if EPA elects to use PM10 as the 

surrogate, EPA evaluate the required 

control efficiency for the cyclone 

control equipment. 

Response: As stated in the preamble 

to the proposed rule, PM is the surrogate 

for chromium and manganese emitted 

from this source category. However, 

when specifying compliance conditions, 

the proposed rule used the measure of 

collection efficiency of PM10. Due to 

other comments received (see above), 

the final rule uses PM as the metric for 

cyclone collection efficiency rather than 

PM10, which should remove any 

confusion about the surrogate. 

Comment: A commenter notes that 

the proposed rule requires the owner of 

a cyclone at a feed preparation facility 

with a daily production level of greater 

than 50 tpd to keep a record from the 

cyclone’s manufacturer of the control 

efficiency. The commenter asks what 

EPA’s expectations are for facilities if 

the manufacturer’s specifications are not 

available or do not show compliance 

with the control efficiency? The 

commenter also asked whether an 

owner or operator would have the 

option of demonstrating compliance 

with the rule by testing the inlet/outlet 

concentrations of the cyclone for 

determining the control efficiency. 

Finally, the commenter asked whether 

other particulate control devices, such 

as a baghouse or fabric filter, or control 

equipment in series, such as a cyclone 

and a baghouse, would be allowed? The 

commenter indicated that if these 

options are allowed that this should be 

made clear in the final rule. 

Response: The commenter asked what 

EPA’s expectations are for facilities in 

showing compliance with the rule if the 

cyclone manufacturer’s design control 

efficiency and operating and 

maintenance procedures are not 

available. We acknowledge that this 

could be a problem, and have included 

in the final rule options for 

documenting that the cyclone is 

designed to achieve 95 percent PM 

reduction. The first option is to obtain 

certification from the manufacturer, as 

proposed. Under Option 2, the owner or 

operator could have a registered 

professional engineer or responsible 

official certify that the cyclone is 

designed in a manner capable of 

achieving 95 percent or greater PM 

reduction and keep a record of the 

information used to make this 

determination. The third option is to 

conduct PM testing at the inlet and 

outlet of the cyclone(s) to demonstrate 

that an efficiency of 95 percent or 

greater PM reduction is actually being 

achieved. If either the certification or 

testing option is used, the owner or 

operator would be required to identify 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
534 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

a parameter (inlet flow rate, inlet 

velocity, pressure drop, or fan 

amperage) operating range that 

constitutes proper operation of the 

device, and develop site-specific 

cyclone maintenance procedures. 

5. Bulk Loading 

Comment: Several commenters 

objected to the proposed requirement 

that emissions from bulk loading be 

reduced through the use of drop filter 

socks. Two of the commenters believe 

that this is too costly and should not be 

considered as GACT. One of the 

commenters explained that, in order to 

meet the proposed requirements, one of 

their facilities would need to redesign 

and purchase equipment for the entire 

bin and bin loading system and 

potentially redesign the entire mill, 

which could cost hundreds of 

thousands of dollars. Two commenters 

disagreed with EPA’s claim that every 

facility uses drop filter socks to reduce 

dust and the loss of product during the 

loading of railcars and trucks. One of 

the commenters argued that EPA’s 

conclusion that every affected facility 

already uses drop filter socks to reduce 

dust and the loss of product during the 

loading of railcars and trucks 

contradicts the background technical 

information in the docket, which 

indicates that the use of drop filter socks 

was reported for around 70 percent of 

the plants. The commenter noted that 

they conducted a survey of 41 prepared 

feed manufacturing companies 

representing 306 plants to identify how 

many facilities currently use drop filter 

socks. The commenter’s survey results 

were as follows: 

1. The average number of loadingdischarge points is 14.3 per facility. 

2. Only 53 percent of the responding 

industry facilities currently have drop 

filter socks installed at discharge points 

where prepared feed products are 

loaded into trucks or railcars. 

3. The estimated average cost to 

install each drop filter sock is $295. 

4. The estimated average annual cost 

to maintain each drop filter sock is 

$215. 

The commenter indicated that, based on 

their survey results and the assumption 

that there would be approximately 6,300 

affected facilities, the cost to install 

drop filter socks at loading discharge 

points would be $12.5 million for the 

entire industry, with an annual cost of 

$9.1 million per year. The commenter 

notes the stark contrast in these 

estimates and EPA’s claim that the 

proposed requirement to install drop 

filter socks would not create additional 

associated costs for facilities. 

Three of the commenters point out 

other alternative methods that are 

equally effective in reducing emissions 

and should be allowed. One commenter 

explained that many facilities have 

discharge-loading points that already 

are designed to limit the distance 

between the feed-discharge point and 

the conveyance, thereby minimizing 

potential dust emissions. All three of 

these commenters note that many loadout operations are conducted in 

enclosed areas, which minimizes 

emissions and eliminates the need for 

drop filter socks. One of the commenters 

asked that, if the requirements did not 

apply to truck load-outs that occur 

inside a building, EPA should clarify 

this in the final rule. 

Response: At proposal, we 

determined that filter drop socks (or 

drop filter socks, as we inadvertently 

used the terms interchangeably) 

represented GACT for bulk loading. As 

evident in the definition of ‘‘filter drop 

sock,’’ we intended that this term 

represent any ‘‘device at the loadout end 

of a bulk loader that lessens fugitive 

emissions by containing the unloaded 

product within the device thus 

preventing windblown and drop caused 

fugitive emissions.’’ We are confident in 

our assumption that every prepared 

feeds manufacturing facility uses some 

device that meets the proposed broad 

definition of filter drop sock. However, 

these comments make it apparent that 

the industry recognizes one specific 

technology as filter drop socks, or drop 

socks, and that it would not be accurate 

to assume that every facility utilizes this 

technology. Therefore, in order to avoid 

confusion, we have removed the 

definition of filter drop sock and revised 

the standard to require that, for the bulk 

loading process where prepared feeds 

products containing chromium or 

manganese are loaded into trucks or 

railcars, a device must be used at the 

loadout end of each bulk loader to 

lessen fugitive emissions. Examples of 

these devices include drop socks, 

flexible spouts, and any device that 

reduces the distance between the 

loading arm and the truck or railcar to 

a degree that avoids dust. We believe it 

is important that these technologies be 

used for all bulk loaders, whether they 

are inside or outside. Therefore, this 

requirement applies to all bulk loaders 

that load products containing chromium 

or manganese. 

6. Bagging 

Comment: One commenter disagreed 

with the decision to reject add-on 

controls for emissions from bagging 

operations based solely on the cost 

effectiveness of installing and operating 

those controls. The commenter 

explained that the Agency’s decision 

was made despite the widespread use of 

these controls, as around 30 percent of 

the smaller facilities and over 90 

percent of the larger facilities controlled 

emissions from bagging. The commenter 

points out that EPA did not disagree or 

reject the notion that control options are 

appropriate or that the economic 

impacts are too great. Rather, the 

commenter points out that the decision 

to reject the option was based solely on 

the cost-effectiveness, and that no 

economic analysis was performed. The 

commenter indicated that basing this 

GACT decision solely on cost 

effectiveness was unlawful. The 

commenter stated that the Agency is not 

directed, under Section 112(d)(5), to set 

standards based on what the agency 

believes is cost effective. The 

commenter noted that the Agency 

themselves stated, ‘‘GACT must reflect 

the ‘methods, practices and techniques 

which are commercially available and 

appropriate for application by the 

sources in the category considering 

economic impacts.’ 74 FR 36982 

(quoting S. REP. NO. 101–228, at 171– 

72).’’ 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenter, as we believe that cost 

effectiveness is an appropriate measure 

to consider in the evaluation of GACT, 

and that considering cost effectiveness 

is not unlawful. We believe that by 

rejecting add-on controls for bagging 

operations because the cost 

effectiveness was ‘‘too high to be 

considered GACT,’’ clearly indicates 

that we concluded the economic 

impacts are too great. In the preamble to 

the proposed rule (74 FR 36986), we 

presented the estimates for both sizes of 

facilities. For the facilities with daily 

production levels of 50 tpd or less, the 

estimates were over $7 million for the 

total capital costs and over $16 million 

per year for the total annual costs, 

resulting in cost effectiveness estimates 

for these controls of around $255 

million per ton of chromium and 

manganese reduction, over $750,000 per 

ton of PM emission reduction, and $3.3 

million per ton of PM2.5 reduction. For 

the facilities with daily production 

levels greater than 50 tpd, the estimates 

were over $10 million for the total 

capital costs and over $13 million per 

year for the total annual costs, resulting 

in cost effectiveness estimates of around 

$37 million per ton of chromium and 

manganese reduction, over $100,000 per 

ton of PM emission reduction, and 

around $500,000 per ton of PM2.5 

reduction. Therefore, no changes were 

made as a result of this comment. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 535 

D. Inspections and Compliance 

Provisions 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that monitoring pressure drop would 

not be the best way to ensure the proper 

functioning of the pelleting cyclones. 

The commenters noted that, due to high 

moisture conditions (always near dew 

point) of the dust laden air passing 

through the cyclones on the pellet 

cooler air system, accurately measuring 

the pressure drop is problematic. The 

commenters stated that moisture and 

particulates in the duct (especially those 

‘‘upstream’’ of the collectors) will 

constantly compromise the accuracy of 

the static pressure indicating 

equipment. Secondly, the commenters 

state that the collectors are quite 

inaccessible and would require remote 

readouts, which add to the cost and 

maintenance of this equipment. One 

commenter believed the best way to 

ensure the proper functioning of their 

collectors is to simply monitor the ampload of the fan. The commenter states 

that if the amp-load on the fan motor 

stays within the proper range then the 

system is functioning properly. The 

commenter also stated that, in their 

operation, the cyclones are located 

between the cooler and the fan and the 

duct work is fully contained and sealed. 

According to the commenter, 

consequently, all the air that is 

discharged from the fan has passed 

through the collectors. The commenter 

stated that, additionally, the fans on 

their cooler air systems are electrically 

interlocked with the pelleting system 

(i.e., the pellet mill feeder will not 

operate unless the fan is operating); 

consequently, if the pelleting system is 

operating, the fan will be operating and 

the continuous monitoring of the fan 

amps will ensure the collectors are 

operating in the proper range. 

One of these commenters believed 

that the cost to industry to install 

pressure-drop gauges and to monitor 

cyclone pressure drop would be 

extremely high. According to the 

commenter, given the limited time 

provided by EPA to respond to this 

proposed requirement, they were unable 

to receive actual price quotes from 

vendors on the cost to install a pressuredrop gauge on a cyclone at various types 

of facilities. The commenter anticipated 

that such prices could vary depending 

upon a facility’s equipment and 

physical layout. However, according to 

the commenter, based upon best 

estimates from vendors, they believed 

that an average conservative cost to 

install a pressure-drop gauge is $1,500 

to $2,000 per cyclone. This commenter 

suggested that the rule be revised to 

include alternative management 

practices and equipment controls as 

follows: 

1. Pellet cooling cyclones are to be 

operated in accordance with the 

parameters authorized by air-operating 

permits issued by appropriate legal 

authorities. 

2. Pellet cooling cyclones are to be 

maintained and operated in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s 

recommendations. 

3. Once per day, affected facilities are 

to perform a visual inspection of the 

operating cyclone and the discharge air 

stream to observe emissions. 

4. Should an affected facility observe 

an emission discharge that is not in 

accordance with the parameters 

authorized within its air-operating 

permit, corrective actions are to be taken 

immediately to correct the discharge 

and bring it into compliance with its airoperating permit. The details of such 

occurrences, if any, are to be recorded 

in the facility’s maintenance records as 

required by rule’s recordkeeping and 

notification requirements. 

Response: We believe that it is 

necessary to have a reasonably frequent 

indication that the cyclones are 

operating properly. Cyclones are 

relatively simple devices and generally 

have no moving parts. A cyclone uses 

an induced draft fan to move the gas 

stream through the device. These fans 

are sized to provide the maximum inlet 

velocity possible for high separation 

without excessive turbulence. The 

primary indicators of the performance of 

cyclones are the outlet opacity and inlet 

velocity. 

The commenter suggested the use of 

outlet opacity to monitor performance; 

however, monitoring outlet opacity 

would require that trained off-site 

contractors be used, or more likely, that 

individuals at the plant be trained and 

certified in determining opacity using 

Method 9. We have estimated that a 

single Method 9 test by an off-site 

contractor costs around $2,000. While 

the costs to train and certify on-site 

employees to perform these required 

daily tests would result in costs less 

than $2,000 per day, we still believe that 

the cost of using outlet opacity as an 

indicator of performance would be too 

high. Therefore, we elected to require 

monitoring which provides an 

indication of inlet velocity. Pressure 

drop across the cyclone is a surrogate 

for inlet velocity, and, contrary to the 

commenters’ claims, it is an appropriate 

measure to indicate proper operation of 

a cyclone. Many cyclone manufacturers 

link the design efficiency with a specific 

pressure drop. However, other 

parameters are appropriate surrogates 

for the inlet velocity. In particular, 

monitoring either inlet flow rate, inlet 

velocity, or fan amperage are acceptable 

alternatives to monitoring pressure 

drop. As a result of these comments, we 

have added alternatives to the final rule 

that allow an owner or operator to 

monitor pressure drop on a daily basis, 

or monitor either the inlet flow rate, 

inlet velocity, or amperage load to the 

fan, on a daily basis to show that the 

cyclone is performing consistent with 

its design specifications. The 

commenter did not provide any 

information to support their estimated 

costs of monitoring equipment. 

One of the commenters suggested that 

cyclones be operated in accordance with 

parameters authorized by operating 

permits issued by appropriate legal 

authorities. We disagree with the 

commenter’s suggested approach. As an 

initial matter, section 112(d)(5) requires 

that the Administrator establish national 

emission standards. To assure 

compliance with these national 

emission standards, EPA develops 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements, as it did in this 

rule. Indeed, one of the reasons 

supporting EPA’s exemption of the 

prepared feed manufacturing area 

source category from the requirements 

of title V is that this rule contains 

sufficient monitoring, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements to assure 

compliance with the requirements of the 

final rule. Thus, section 112 

contemplates not only that EPA will 

establish national emission standards, 

but that EPA will establish appropriate 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements to assure 

compliance with those requirements. 

Furthermore, the monitoring and other 

compliance provisions in State permits 

can vary considerably, and some 

prepared feeds manufacturing facilities 

may not even have permits. If a source 

would like to use an alternative 

monitoring approach allowed by a state 

permit, it should follow the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.8(f). 

Therefore, we reject the commenter’s 

suggestion to remove any specific 

monitoring requirements from the rule. 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed concern over the frequency of 

record keeping for the pelleting control 

devices. One of these commenters 

suggested that weekly, rather than daily, 

pressure drop readings would be 

adequate. This commenter stated that, 

while a monthly maintenance check on 

the cyclone is a reasonable requirement, 

daily pressure drop readings are 

excessive because the pressure drop 

readings would not be expected to vary 

widely. The commenter also noted that 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
536 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

many cyclones are installed in areas that 

are not easily accessible so daily checks 

can be time consuming to collect data 

that they describe as a ‘‘maintenance 

indicator.’’ The other commenter stated 

that weekly recording of readings would 

be adequate and that daily 

recordkeeping was ‘‘overkill’’ (although 

the commenter provided justification for 

reduced recordkeeping specific to a 

baghouse rather than the proposed 

requirement for a cyclone). 

Response: We proposed using the 

maintenance indicator of pressure drop 

in order to ensure that the cyclones are 

operating correctly as an indicator of 

compliance with the rule that can be 

readily checked by an inspector. As 

discussed above, the final rule includes 

the option to daily monitor inlet flow 

rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan 

amperage. By providing multiple 

options to indicate compliance, we 

believe the facility will find an option 

that can be completed from an 

accessible area. Daily readings of these 

parameters are considered appropriate 

because, while a cyclone may be a 

rather simple control device in terms of 

moving parts, the system of ductwork 

and fans impact the efficiency of the 

unit. Each cyclone is designed for a 

specific inlet velocity in order to 

maximize the collection efficiency. We 

believe that daily checks are necessary 

to ensure the ductwork is not entraining 

outside air and/or that the fan is 

operating in the designed manner. As a 

result, we have not changed the 

requirement for daily monitoring and 

recording of cyclone performance 

measures. 

Comment: A commenter also asked 

that the rule specify which cyclone is 

expected to have a pressure drop gauge 

installed in cases where multiple 

cyclones are installed in a line. 

Specifically, would pressure drop 

monitoring be required for the initial 

cyclone, subsequent cyclones, or all 

cyclones? 

Response: The answer is dependent 

on the design reduction efficiency of the 

cyclones. If one cyclone in a series is 

designed to achieve 95 percent or 

greater PM removal, then monitoring 

would only be necessary for that one 

device. However, if the design 

efficiencies for all the individual 

cyclones in the series are less than 95 

percent, but the combined design 

efficiency is 95 percent or greater, then 

the inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, 

pressure drop, or fan amperage for all 

the cyclones would need to be 

monitored. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Agency consider 

revising the proposed monitoring to 

specify that the pressure drop must be 

monitored at least once per day when 

the cyclone is in operation. 

Response: We agree with the concept 

of this comment. However, we want to 

make clear that the cyclone is required 

to be used at all times when the 

pelleting process is in operation. 

Therefore, the rule has been revised to 

state that monitoring of the cyclone 

operating parameters is required at least 

once per day when the pelleting process 

is in operation. 

E. Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

§ 63.11619(e)(1) of the proposed rule 

indicated that facilities that do not add 

any materials containing chromium or 

manganese compounds are not subject 

to the rule. The commenter interpreted 

this to mean that facilities that do not 

use chromium- or manganesecontaining materials would be excluded 

from all aspects of the NESHAP, 

including the requirement to submit an 

Initial Notification. However, the 

commenter noted that, during the 

August 4, 2009 webinar (Docket Item 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0080–44), it 

was suggested that these facilities would 

be required to submit an initial 

notification. The commenter indicated 

that it seems unnecessary to require 

submittal of initial notification from 

facilities that do not use chromium or 

manganese compounds, and requested 

that EPA clarify whether this report is 

required of these facilities. 

Response: The commenter’s 

interpretation is correct. Facilities that 

do not add any materials containing 

chromium or manganese to any product 

manufactured at the facility are not 

subject to the rule, including the 

requirement to submit an initial 

notification. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the proposed 

requirement to submit an annual 

compliance certification report be 

omitted from the final rule. The 

commenter said that annual reporting is 

burdensome and difficult for small 

businesses to do year after year. The 

commenter believes that annual 

reporting creates excessive paperwork 

for the facility and the delegated 

authority with little environmental 

benefit. The commenter also 

recommended that the monthly record 

certifying that a facility has complied 

with the dust minimization 

management practices be omitted, as 

they believe it is very excessive. 

Response: Provided that the facility is 

in compliance, this annual compliance 

certification report only needs to 

indicate that compliance has been 

achieved. In the event that a 

noncompliance event has occurred, this 

report will need to provide information 

about this event. We believe it is 

important that there is clear 

accountability regarding compliance 

with the regulation, and we believe that 

this is best accomplished by having a 

responsible official certify that the 

facility has complied with the 

requirements in the rule. We disagree 

with the commenter that this once per 

year report is difficult and overly 

burdensome. Therefore, the final rule 

has retained the requirement to submit 

annual certification reports. 

However, we considered the 

commenter’s request regarding the 

monthly certifications and have 

determined that they are not necessary. 

We believe that accountability can be 

maintained via the annual certifications 

and required records. Therefore, the 

proposed requirement to keep a 

monthly record certifying compliance 

with the management practices was not 

maintained in the final rule. 

Comment: One commenter pointed 

out that the proposed rule did not 

require a facility to keep records to 

show that it was below or above the 50 

tpd production level that determines 

whether controls are required for 

emissions from the pelleting and pellet 

cooling operation. The commenter also 

noted that the rule did not explain what 

happens when a facility with a daily 

production level less than 50 tpd 

increases production such that they 

would have a daily production level 

greater than 50 tpd. The commenter 

recommended that provisions be added 

to eliminate these deficiencies. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter, and added recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements related to 

the average daily feed production level. 

We also clarified how this level is to be 

determined. The final rule specifies that 

the initial determination of the average 

daily feed production level is based on 

the one-year period prior to the 

compliance date for existing sources, or 

the design rate for new sources. The 

final rule also requires that facilities 

with average daily feed production 

levels below 50 tpd report their initial 

average daily feed production level in 

their Notification of Compliance Status 

report. These facilities would be 

required to maintain average daily feed 

production level records to demonstrate 

that they do not exceed the 50 tpd 

threshold in the future. At the end of 

each calendar year, the facility will be 

required to re-calculate the average 

daily feed production level for the 

previous year. If the average daily feed 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 537 

production level exceeds 50 tpd, the 

facility would have to comply with the 

requirement to collect emissions from 

the pelleting and pellet cooling 

operations and route them to a cyclone 

by July 1 of that year. 

Prepared feed mill owners or 

operators with average daily feed 

production levels less than 50 tpd that 

elect to comply with the requirement to 

collect emissions from the pelleting and 

pellet cooling operations and route the 

emissions to a cyclone would not be 

required to maintain production 

records. 

F. Definitions 

Comment: Three commenters 

suggested that the EPA establish 

definitions for chromium compounds 

and manganese compounds. One of the 

commenters suggested using criteria 

consistent with that found within the 

Agency’s TRI reporting requirements, 

and noted that these regulations state 

that: (1) Chromium compounds and 

manganese compounds are exempt from 

the TRI reporting requirements when 

the concentration of such chemicals is 

less than 1 percent of the total 

compound; and (2) such an exemption 

applies whether the facility received or 

produced the compound. One of the 

other commenters pointed out that, in 

other area source NESHAP, materials 

containing HAP are defined as materials 

that contain chromium in amounts 

greater than 0.1 percent by weight or 

manganese in amounts greater than 1.0 

percent by weight. The commenter cited 

the definition of ‘‘Material containing 

MFHAP’’ in § 63.1522 (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart XXXXXX) as an example. 

Response: The commenters are 

confusing two concepts. A ‘‘chemical 

compound’’ is a basic chemistry term to 

indicate a substance composed of two or 

more elements united chemically in 

definite proportions by mass. Therefore, 

any chemical compound containing the 

element chromium would be a 

‘‘chromium compound.’’ For example, 

chromic oxide, chromium trioxide, and 

potassium chromate are all chromium 

compounds. Similarly, any compound 

containing the element manganese is a 

‘‘manganese compound.’’ Manganese 

dioxide and manganese chloride are 

examples of manganese compounds. In 

the CAA, ‘‘chromium compounds’’ and 

‘‘manganese compounds’’ two of the 30 

Urban HAP. See Integrated Air Toxics 

Strategy; see also CAA 112(b). 

Therefore, any chemical compound that 

contains chromium or manganese is 

considered a HAP. We do not believe 

that it is necessary to add language in 

the rule to explain this standard 

chemistry terminology. 

However, we agree with the 

commenter that the addition of 

definitions of ‘‘a material containing 

chromium’’ and ‘‘a material containing 

manganese’’ are appropriate. As we 

have pointed out in several other area 

source rulemakings, the CAA section 

112(k) inventory was primarily based on 

the 1990 TRI, and that is the case for the 

Prepared Feeds Manufacturing source 

category as well. The reporting 

requirements for the TRI do not include 

de minimis concentrations of toxic 

chemicals in mixtures; therefore, the 

CAA section 112(k) inventory would not 

have included emissions from 

operations involving chemicals below 

these concentration levels. See 40 CFR 

372.38, Toxic Chemical Release 

Reporting: Community Right-To-Know 

(Reporting Requirements). Accordingly, 

the percentages noted above define the 

scope of the listed source category; they 

are not exemptions. 

Therefore, we believe that it is also 

appropriate to incorporate this into the 

prepared feeds manufacturing area 

source NESHAP. Specifically, we have 

added the following definitions to the 

final rule: 

A material containing chromium 

means a material that contains 

chromium (Cr, atomic number 24) in 

amounts greater than or equal to 0.1 

percent by weight. 

A material containing manganese 

means a material that contains 

manganese (Mn, atomic number 25) in 

amounts greater than or equal to 1.0 

percent by weight. 

We also revised the applicability 

provisions in § 63.11619(a) to specify 

that the rule applies to prepared feeds 

manufacturing facilities that use a 

material containing chromium or a 

material containing manganese and is 

an area source of emissions of HAP. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the EPA add the following 

definition for prepared animal feeds: ‘‘a 

mixture of ingredients and supplements 

fortified with essential minerals, 

intended to be fed directly to animals to 

meet or exceed total daily nutrient 

requirements.’’ The commenter also 

suggested that the definition of prepared 

feeds manufacturing facility be changed 

to specify that the feeds produced must 

be ‘‘fortified with essential minerals.’’ 

Response: As discussed earlier in 

section B, the prepared feeds area 

source category extends beyond those 

facilities manufacturing only products 

intended to be fed directly to animals. 

Additionally, this definition is not 

consistent with the NAICS code that 

forms the basis for this source category. 

Therefore, we did not incorporate the 

changes suggested by the commenter. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that drop filter sock should be defined 

and that it needs to specify the materials 

of construction and how far into the 

railcar or truck it needs to extend. 

Another commenter recommended that 

the Agency amend the term ‘‘drop filter 

sock’’ to ‘‘drop sock, since the device 

does not filter potential emissions in 

any manner.’’ 

Response: As discussed in section 

V.C.5, we have eliminated the use of the 

term ‘‘filter drop sock’’ in the final rule. 

Therefore, this definition has been 

removed. 

G. Impacts Assessment 

Comment: One commenter believes 

that EPA’s estimated number of 

prepared feeds manufacturers affected 

by the proposed rule is inaccurately 

low. The commenter points out that 

EPA states that approximately 1,800 

area-source prepared feed 

manufacturing facilities currently 

operating add chromium compounds or 

manganese compounds to their products 

and therefore would be subject to the 

proposed area source standards. In 

contrast, the commenter believes that 

the actual number of affected facilities 

exceeds 6,300. The commenter notes 

that the FDA’s bovine spongiform 

encephalopathy inspection database 

currently lists more than 6,300 feed 

mills in which FDA has conducted 

inspections. The commenter points out 

that the actual number of facilities 

subject to the proposed rule has a direct 

impact on the agency’s stated benefits 

and costs of the rule. 

Response: We agree that the number 

of facilities subject to the rule is a key 

component in the assessment of 

impacts. Ideally, we would not only 

have an estimate of the number of 

facilities in a source category for which 

we are developing regulations, but we 

would also have a list of those facilities. 

During our information gathering 

efforts, it was clear that the industry was 

not well represented in the two national 

emissions databases (TRI and NEI) that 

we typically use to characterize an 

industry and their emissions. We also 

did not identify any other source of 

information that would provide a list of 

specific prepared feed manufacturing 

facilities in the U.S. Therefore, we based 

our estimate of 1,800 prepared feed 

manufacturing facilities on the 2002 

U.S. Economic Census of 

Manufacturers. Prior to proposal, we 

consulted with the commenter on this 

topic, and the commenter agreed that 

1,800 was a reasonable estimate. 

However, we appreciate that the 

commenter has now obtained other 

information that they believe indicates 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
538 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

that the number of facilities may be 

higher than originally estimated. We 

investigated the FDA inspections 

database mentioned by the commenter 

and found that this database includes 

many more types of facilities than just 

prepared feed mills. The FDA Web site 

says the following: ‘‘Inspections of 

renderers, feed mills, ruminant feeders, 

protein blenders, pet feed 

manufacturers, pet feed salvagers, 

animal feed distributors and 

transporters, ruminant feeders, and 

others have been conducted to 

determine compliance with the BSE/ 

Ruminant Feed regulations.’’ Clearly 

this includes many types of facilities 

that are not in the Prepared Feeds 

Manufacturing area source category. 

Facilities in the Prepared Feeds 

Manufacturing Source Category are 

classified under NAICS 311119, which 

includes ‘‘establishments primarily 

engaged in manufacturing animal food 

(except dog and cat) from ingredients, 

such as grains, oilseed mill products, 

and meat products.’’ The proposed 

applicability of the rule was taken 

directly from this NAICS definition, 

except that it limited applicability to 

those animal feed manufacturers that 

use chromium or manganese. The 2002 

U.S. Economic Census of Manufacturers 

reports 1,567 establishments under 

NAICS 311119. The census reports 

1,811 establishments under the broader 

NAICS 31111. While NAICS 31111 

likely includes establishments that 

would not be included in the source 

category, we chose to place our estimate 

of the number of prepared feed facilities 

at 1,800 to be conservative. As noted 

above, we sought input on this estimate 

and the commenter deemed it as a 

‘‘reasonable estimate’’ (Docket No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2008–0080–0010). 

The commenter did not provide any 

explanation why the Census data were 

incorrect for these NAICS codes. The 

commenter also did not provide 

evidence that establishments counted 

under other NAICS codes would be 

subject to the rule. As discussed in 

section V.B, we revised the applicability 

provisions to ensure that it is clear that 

the rule only applies to the types of 

facilities that formed the basis for the 

source category listing. Since this listing 

was based on NAICS 311119, and no 

evidence has been submitted that the 

Census information for NAICS is 

incorrect, we did not change our 

estimate of the population of prepared 

feed manufacturing facilities in the U.S. 

Comment: One commenter pointed 

out that data reported within the TRI, 

which were used as a basis for EPA’s 

baseline emission estimates, are not 

solely an indication of emissions to the 

atmosphere. The commenter stated that, 

by definition, the reported release may 

result from spilling, leaking, pouring, 

emptying, discharging, injecting, 

escaping, leaching, dumping, or 

disposing of the reported chemical into 

the environment. 

Response: The commenter is correct 

that a variety of types of releases are 

reported in the TRI. However, for our 

analysis, we only used releases reported 

as ‘‘Fugitive Air Emissions’’ and ‘‘Point 

Source Air Emissions.’’ Therefore, we 

disagree with the comment, as these 

releases clearly represent an indication 

of emissions to the atmosphere. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concerns about the methodology used to 

estimate emission levels of chromium 

compounds, manganese compounds, 

and total PM. The commenter stated 

their belief that this analysis lacked a 

sound statistical basis, and that the 

baseline emission estimates and 

corresponding estimated potential 

emission reductions used by EPA 

within its proposed rule are erroneous 

and do not support EPA’s proposed 

management practices and equipment 

controls. 

In particular, the commenter believed 

that it was inappropriate to extrapolate 

the chromium compound and 

manganese compound emissions for the 

entire industry based on average 

emission rates from only 22 facilities 

represented in EPA’s 2006 TRI. The 

commenter pointed out that this 

problem was exacerbated by the fact 

that only a fraction of these 22 facilities 

reported emissions of chromium or 

manganese compounds. Further, the 

commenter also stated that facilities 

reporting the majority of these 

emissions produce trace mineral 

premixes subsequently used by other 

feed manufacturers, and that they do not 

have pelleting operations, which EPA 

identifies as the largest emission source 

at prepared feed mills. 

With regard to the estimated PM 

emissions, the commenter indicated that 

they believe that the average PM 

emission level calculated from the NEI 

was inaccurate. In particular, the 

commenter believes that the 70 facilities 

in the NEI with PM emissions represent 

a number of the highest production 

volume feed manufacturers in the 

United States. Therefore, the commenter 

states that using the average PM 

emissions for these larger facilities 

significantly overestimates the PM 

emissions for the entire industry. 

Response: The information 

questioned by the commenter was 

considered by EPA in the selection of 

GACT. As discussed above in section 

V.D, this information did not impact the 

decision to regulate chromium and 

manganese from the prepared feeds 

source category or the decision which 

emission sources to regulate. Further, 

the emission reductions estimated by 

this analysis were only one of the 

considerations that make up the GACT 

decision. 

With regard to the specific concerns 

offered by the commenter, the technical 

memorandum describing the estimation 

of baseline emissions discussed the lack 

of facility-specific emissions data for the 

prepared feeds industry. Given this lack 

of data, the approach selected was to 

develop ‘‘model plants’’ to represent the 

industry. The use of model plants with 

‘‘average’’ parameters is a sound 

technical approach that EPA has long 

used when facility-specific information 

is not available for the entire industry. 

Therefore, we reject the argument by the 

commenter that the use of average 

emission levels is inappropriate. 

However, we do recognize the 

concerns of the commenters with regard 

to the specific average emission levels 

utilized and the manner in which they 

were created. For instance, the average 

chromium compound emission level 

was based on a single facility’s 

emissions in the 2006 TRI, and the 

average manganese compound 

emissions level was based on emissions 

from eight facilities. The commenter did 

not provide any suggestions on how to 

improve the analysis using the existing 

or other readily available information. 

However, in light of the concerns, we 

reexamined the available data and the 

approaches used. 

After this review, relatively 

significant changes were made to five 

specific areas of our impacts analysis. 

Each of these is discussed below. There 

is a technical memorandum in the 

docket that discusses these changes 

further and presents the detailed 

updated results. 

1. Changes to Analyses 

Percentage of Industry in Small 

Facility Subcategory. The proposal 

analysis estimated the number of 

prepared feed manufacturing facilities 

with average daily feed production 

values of 50 tpd or less based on 

information submitted by the industry 

in response to an EPA questionnaire. 

Around 11 percent of the facilities 

responding to this questionnaire had 

daily production levels of 50 tpd or less. 

Following the completion of the 

baseline emissions and impacts 

analyses, EPA conducted an economic 

impact analysis. As part of this analysis, 

EPA collected detailed data from the 

2002 Economic Census of 

Manufacturers that broke down the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 539 

industry based on the number of 

employees. This information suggested 

that the profile of the industry based on 

the industry questionnaire responses 

may have been biased slightly toward 

larger facilities (i.e., a larger percentage 

of the industry would have average 

daily feed production rates of 50 tpd or 

less than originally estimated). 

Therefore, this new information was 

used, along with correlation between 

production and revenues provided by a 

commenter, to reassess this profile. The 

revised analyses assume that 29 percent 

of the facilities in the industry have 

average daily feed production levels of 

50 tpd or less. 

Number of Facilities Emitting 

Chromium. In the proposal analysis, it 

was assumed that every facility in the 

industry added chromium-containing 

nutrients to their products. However, in 

response to follow-up questions asked 

by EPA on their public comments, the 

industry trade organizations stated that: 

‘‘The use of chromium compounds 

among feed manufacturers is not as 

prevalent as the use of manganese 

compounds. Until a recent FDAapproval for use in dairy feeds earlier 

this year, chromium compounds had 

been approved for use only in swine 

feeds. Only about 2 to 3 percent of feed 

mills in the U.S. use a chromium 

compound, and only two compounds, 

chromium proprionate and chromium 

tripicolinate, are approved by FDA for 

use in swine feed.’’ Based on this 

information, the revised impacts 

analysis assumes that only 3 percent of 

the prepared feed manufacturing 

facilities in the United States use and 

emit chromium. 

Facility Average Chromium and 

Manganese Emission Rates. Because the 

national databases considered prior to 

proposal contained data for such a 

limited number of prepared feed 

manufacturing facilities, a model plant 

approach was used to estimate 

nationwide emissions and impacts for 

the source category. This model plant 

approach used facility average emission 

levels from the 2006 Toxics Release 

Inventory (TRI) for chromium and 

manganese. The commenter criticized 

the development of average emission 

rates from such a limited data set. To 

broaden the data set, TRI data were 

obtained for every facility reporting 

NAICS code 311119 and/or SIC 3048 for 

the years 1990 through 2007. There 

were over 10,000 facilities reporting 

these NAICS/SIC codes over these 18 

years, averaging just over 570 facilities 

per year. On average, there were 134 

facilities reporting manganese emissions 

each year and 2 reporting chromium. 

These data were used to calculate new 

facility average manganese and 

chromium emission rates, which were 

used in the revised analyses. 

Production Level To Calculate PM 

Emission Factor. In the proposal 

analyses, the facility average PM 

emission rate from the 2002 NEI for 

emission sources after the point in the 

process when chromium or manganese 

would be added was divided by the 

average production rate from the 

facilities that responded to the EPA 

questionnaire to obtain an emission 

factor in units of tons per year PM 

emissions per tpd production level. The 

commenter indicated that this average 

production level used, 177 tpd, was not 

representative of the facilities in the 

NEI. They ‘‘conservatively estimated 

that the average production that 

occurred at those facilities listed in the 

2002 NEI exceeded 500 tpd.’’ In the 

revised analysis, the PM emissions 

factor was calculated based on the 

production level of 500 tpd provided by 

the commenter. 

Cyclone Efficiency for PM2.5. The 

impacts analysis for the proposed rule 

assumed that cyclones would achieve a 

95 percent reduction efficiency for 

PM2.5. An efficiency chart provided by 

a commenter shows cyclone efficiencies 

of approximately 30 percent for PM2.5. 

This value was used in the revised 

analysis. 

2. Summary of Revised Results 

The results of the revised impacts 

analysis showed a decrease in the PM 

emissions and increases in the 

manganese, chromium, and PM2.5

emissions. The revised emissions levels 

prior to the implementation of this 

regulation are 8.2 tons per year of 

chromium, 195 tons per year of 

manganese, around 11,000 tons per year 

of both PM and PM2.5. 

The revised analysis also shows 

higher levels of chromium and 

manganese emission reductions and 

lower levels of both PM and PM2.5

reductions. Since the costs were not 

impacted by the changes to the analyses, 

the cost effectiveness of the controls 

were lower for the chromium and 

manganese and higher for the PM and 

PM2.5. Cost effectiveness values are 

discussed further in the revised impacts 

memo which is in the docket. Based on 

the comments, we did change the 

impacts, but none of these conclusions 

affect our choice of GACT. 

H. Title V Requirements 

Comment: Several commenters agreed 

with the proposed title V permit 

exemption, noting such factors as the 

adequacy of existing state programs to 

ensure compliance, the additional 

economic and other burdens imposed 

by title V permitting, and the lack of 

technical resources to comply with 

permitting requirements for facilities 

that are mostly small businesses. 

Response: We acknowledge the 

commenters’ support for the exemption 

from title V permitting requirements in 

this rule. 

Comment: One commenter argued 

that the agency’s proposal to exempt the 

area source category from title V 

requirements is unlawful and arbitrary. 

The commenter states that section 

502(a) of the CAA authorizes EPA to 

exempt area source categories from title 

V permitting requirements if the 

Administrator finds that compliance 

with such requirements is 

‘‘impracticable, infeasible or 

unnecessarily burdensome.’’ 42 U.S.C. 

7661a(a). The commenter notes that 

EPA did not claim that title V 

requirements are impracticable or 

infeasible for the source category it 

proposes to exempt, but that EPA 

instead relied entirely on its claim that 

title V would be ‘‘unnecessarily 

burdensome.’’ 

Response: Section 502(a) of the CAA 

states, in relevant part, that: 

* * * [t]he Administrator may, in the 

Administrator’s discretion and consistent 

with the applicable provisions of this 

chapter, promulgate regulations to exempt 

one or more source categories (in whole or 

in part) from the requirements of this 

subsection if the Administrator finds that 

compliance with such requirements is 

impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily 

burdensome on such categories, except that 

the Administrator may not exempt any major 

source from such regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 

section 7661a(a). 

The statute plainly vests the 

Administrator with discretion to 

determine when it is appropriate to 

exempt non-major (i.e., area) sources of 

air pollution from the requirements of 

title V. The commenter correctly notes 

that EPA based the proposed 

exemptions solely on a determination 

that title V is ‘‘unnecessarily 

burdensome,’’ and did not rely on 

whether the requirements of title V are 

‘‘impracticable’’ or ‘‘infeasible’’, which 

are alternative bases for exempting area 

sources from title V. 

To the extent the commenter is 

asserting that EPA must determine that 

all three criteria in CAA section 502 are 

met before an area source category can 

be exempted from title V, the 

commenter misreads the statute. The 

statute expressly provides that EPA may 

exempt an area source category from 

title V requirements if EPA determines 

that the requirements are 

‘‘impracticable, infeasible or 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
540 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

4 In the Exemption Rule, in addition to 

determining whether compliance with title V 

requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome 

on an area source category, we considered, 

consistent with the guidance provided by the 

legislative history of section 502(a), whether 

exempting the area source category would adversely 

affect public health, welfare or the environment. 

See 72 FR 15254–15255, March 25, 2005. As 

discussed in the proposed rule and below, after 

conducting the four-factor balancing test and 

determining that title V requirements would be 

unnecessarily burdensome on the area source 

categories at issue here, we examined whether the 

exemption from title V would adversely affect 

public health, welfare and the environment, and 

found that it would not. 

5 If the commenter objected to our interpretation 

of the term ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in the 

Exemption Rule, it should have commented on, and 

challenged, that rule. Any challenge to the 

Exemption Rule is now time barred by CAA section 

307(b). Although we received comments on the title 

V Exemption Rule during the rulemaking process, 

no one sought judicial review of that rule. 

unnecessarily burdensome.’’ See CAA 

section 502 (emphasis added). If 

Congress had wanted to require that all 

three criteria be met before a category 

could be exempted from title V, it 

would have stated so by using the word 

‘‘and,’’ in place of ‘‘or’’. 

Comment: One commenter stated that, 

in order to demonstrate that compliance 

with title V would be ‘‘unnecessarily 

burdensome,’’ EPA must show, among 

other things, that the ‘‘burden’’ of 

compliance is unnecessary. According 

to the commenter, by promulgating title 

V, Congress indicated that it viewed the 

burden imposed by its requirements as 

necessary as a general rule. The 

commenter maintained that the title V 

requirements provide many benefits that 

Congress viewed as necessary. Thus, in 

the commenter’s view, EPA must show 

why, for any given category, special 

circumstances make compliance 

unnecessary. The commenter believed 

that EPA has not made that showing for 

the category it proposes to exempt. 

Response: EPA does not agree with 

the commenter’s characterization of the 

demonstration required for determining 

that title V is unnecessarily burdensome 

for an area source category. As stated 

above, the CAA provides the 

Administrator discretion to exempt an 

area source category from title V if he 

determines that compliance with title V 

requirements is ‘‘impracticable, 

infeasible, or unnecessarily 

burdensome’’ on an area source 

category. See CAA section 502(a). In 

December 2005, in a national 

rulemaking, EPA interpreted the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in CAA 

section 502 and developed a four-factor 

balancing test for determining whether 

title V is unnecessarily burdensome for 

a particular area source category, such 

that an exemption from title V is 

appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, December 

19, 2005 (‘‘Exemption Rule’’). In 

addition to interpreting the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ and 

developing the four-factor balancing test 

in the Exemption Rule, EPA applied the 

test to certain area source categories. 

The four factors that EPA identified in 

the Exemption Rule for determining 

whether title V is unnecessarily 

burdensome on a particular area source 

category include: (1) Whether title V 

would result in significant 

improvements to the compliance 

requirements, including monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting, that are 

proposed for an area source category (70 

FR 75323); (2) whether title V 

permitting would impose significant 

burdens on the area source category and 

whether the burdens would be 

aggravated by any difficulty the sources 

may have in obtaining assistance from 

permitting agencies (70 FR 75324); (3) 

whether the costs of title V permitting 

for the area source category would be 

justified, taking into consideration any 

potential gains in compliance likely to 

occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); 

and (4) whether there are 

implementation and enforcement 

programs in place that are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the NESHAP for 

the area source category, without relying 

on title V permits (70 FR 75326).4

In discussing the above factors in the 

Exemption Rule, we explained that we 

considered on ‘‘a case-by-case basis the 

extent to which one or more of the four 

factors supported title V exemptions for 

a given source category, and then we 

assessed whether considered together 

those factors demonstrated that 

compliance with title V requirements 

would be ‘unnecessarily burdensome’ 

on the category, consistent with section 

502(a) of the Act.’’ See 70 FR 75323. 

Thus, we concluded that not all of the 

four factors must weigh in favor of 

exemption for EPA to determine that 

title V is unnecessarily burdensome for 

a particular area source category. 

Instead, the factors are to be considered 

in combination and EPA determines 

whether the factors, taken together, 

support an exemption from title V for a 

particular source category. 

The commenter asserts that ‘‘EPA 

must show * * * that the ‘‘burden’’ of 

compliance is unnecessary.’’ This is not, 

however, one of the four factors that we 

developed in the Exemption Rule in 

interpreting the term ‘‘unnecessarily 

burdensome’’ in CAA section 502, but 

rather a new test that the commenter 

maintains EPA ‘‘must’’ meet in 

determining what is ‘‘unnecessarily 

burdensome’’ under CAA section 502. 

EPA did not re-open its interpretation of 

the term ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ 

in CAA section 502 in the July 27, 2009 

proposed rule for the category at issue 

in this rule. Rather, we applied the fourfactor balancing test articulated in the 

Exemption Rule to the source category 

for which we proposed title V 

exemption. Had we sought to re-open 

our interpretation of the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in CAA 

section 502 and modify it from what 

was articulated in the Exemption Rule, 

we would have stated so in the July 27, 

2009 proposed rule and solicited 

comments on a revised interpretation, 

which we did not do. Accordingly, we 

reject the commenter’s attempt to create 

a new test for determining what 

constitutes ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ 

under CAA section 502, as that issue 

falls outside the purview of this 

rulemaking.5

Furthermore, we believe that the 

commenter’s position that ‘‘EPA must 

show * * * that the ‘burden’ of 

compliance is unnecessary’’ is 

unreasonable and contrary to 

Congressional intent concerning the 

applicability of title V to area sources. 

Congress intended to treat area sources 

differently under title V, as it expressly 

authorized the EPA Administrator to 

exempt such sources from the 

requirements of title V at her discretion. 

There are several instances throughout 

the CAA where Congress chose to treat 

major sources differently than nonmajor sources, as it did in CAA section 

502. Moreover, although the commenter 

espouses a new interpretation of the 

term ‘unnecessarily burdensome’ in 

CAA section 502 and attempts to create 

a new test for determining whether the 

requirements of title V are 

’unnecessarily burdensome’ for an area 

source category, the commenter does 

not explain why EPA’s interpretation of 

the term ‘unnecessarily burdensome’ is 

arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in 

accordance with law. We maintain that 

our interpretation of the term 

‘unnecessarily burdensome’ in section 

502, as set forth in the Exemption Rule, 

is reasonable. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

exempting a source category from title V 

permitting requirements deprives both 

the public generally and individual 

members of the public who would 

obtain and use permitting information 

from the benefit of citizen oversight and 

enforcement that Congress plainly 

viewed as necessary. According to the 

commenter, the text and legislative 

history of the CAA provide that 

Congress intended ordinary citizens to 

be able to get emissions and compliance 

information about air toxics sources and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 541 

to be able to use that information in 

enforcement actions and in public 

policy decisions on a state and local 

level. The commenter stated that 

Congress did not think that enforcement 

by states or other government entities 

was enough; if it had, Congress would 

not have enacted the citizen suit 

provisions, and the legislative history of 

the CAA would not show that Congress 

viewed citizens’ access to information 

and ability to enforce CAA requirements 

as highly important both as an 

individual right and as a crucial means 

to ensuring compliance. According to 

the commenter, if a source does not 

have a title V permit, it is difficult or 

impossible—depending on the laws, 

regulations and practices of the state in 

which the source operates—for a 

member of the public to obtain relevant 

information about its emissions and 

compliance status. The commenter 

stated that, likewise, it is difficult or 

impossible for citizens to bring 

enforcement actions. The commenter 

continued that EPA does not claim—far 

less demonstrate with substantial 

evidence—that citizens would have the 

same ability to obtain compliance and 

emissions information about sources in 

the category it proposes to exempt 

without title V permits. The commenter 

also said that, likewise, EPA does not 

claim—far less demonstrate with 

substantial evidence—that citizens 

would have the same enforcement 

ability. Thus, according to the 

commenter, the exemption EPA 

proposes plainly eliminates benefits that 

Congress thought necessary. The 

commenter claimed that to, justify its 

exemption, EPA would have to show 

that the informational and enforcement 

benefits that Congress intended title V 

to confer—benefits which the 

commenter argues are eliminated by the 

exemptions—are for some reason 

unnecessary with respect to the category 

it proposes to exempt. The commenter 

concluded that EPA does not even 

acknowledge these benefits of title V, far 

less explain why they are unnecessary, 

and that for this reason alone, EPA’s 

proposed exemptions are unlawful and 

arbitrary. 

Response: Once again, the commenter 

attempts to create a new test for 

determining whether the requirements 

of title V are ‘‘unnecessarily 

burdensome’’ on an area source 

category. Specifically, the commenter 

argues that EPA does not claim or 

demonstrate with substantial evidence 

that citizens would have the same 

access to information and the same 

ability to enforce under these NESHAP, 

absent title V. The commenter’s position 

represents a significant revision of the 

fourth factor that EPA developed in the 

Exemption Rule in interpreting the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in CAA 

section 502. For all of the reasons 

explained above, the commenter’s 

attempt to create a new test for EPA to 

meet in determining whether title V is 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ on an area 

source category cannot be sustained. 

Moreover, EPA’s interpretation of the 

term ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in 

CAA section 502 is reasonable. 

EPA reasonably applied the four 

factors to the facts of the category at 

issue in this rule, and the commenter 

has not identified any flaw in EPA’s 

application of the four factor test to the 

area source category at issue here. 

Moreover, as explained in the proposal, 

we considered implementation and 

enforcement issues in the fourth factor 

of the four-factor balancing test. 

Specifically, the fourth factor of EPA’s 

unnecessarily burdensome analysis 

provides that EPA will consider 

whether there are implementation and 

enforcement programs in place that are 

sufficient to assure compliance with the 

NESHAP without relying on title V 

permits. See 70 FR 75326. 

In applying the fourth factor here, 

EPA determined that there are adequate 

enforcement programs in place to assure 

compliance with the CAA. As stated in 

the proposal, we believe that statedelegated programs are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the NESHAP 

and that States must have adequate 

programs to enforce section 112 

requirements and provide assurances 

that they will enforce the NESHAP 

before EPA will delegate the program. In 

addition, EPA retains authority to 

enforce this NESHAP under the CAA. 

See 74 FR 36988. The commenter does 

not challenge the conclusion that there 

are adequate state and Federal programs 

in place to ensure compliance with and 

enforcement of the NESHAP. Instead, 

the commenter provides an 

unsubstantiated assertion that 

information about compliance by the 

area sources with this NESHAP will not 

be as accessible to the public as 

information provided to a State 

pursuant to title V. The commenter does 

not, however, provide any information 

that States will treat information 

submitted under these NESHAP 

differently than information submitted 

pursuant to a title V permit. 

Even accepting the commenter’s 

assertions that it is more difficult for 

citizens to enforce the NESHAP absent 

a title V permit, which we dispute, in 

evaluating the fourth factor in EPA’s 

balancing test, EPA concluded that there 

are adequate implementation and 

enforcement programs in place to 

enforce the NESHAP. The commenter 

has provided no information to the 

contrary or explained how the absence 

of title V actually impairs the ability of 

citizens to enforce the provisions of 

these NESHAP. 

Furthermore, the fourth factor is one 

factor that we evaluated in determining 

if the title V requirements were 

unnecessarily burdensome. As 

explained above, we considered that 

factor together with the other factors 

and determined that it was appropriate 

to finalize the proposed exemption at 

issue in this rule. 

Comment: One commenter explained 

that title V provides important 

monitoring benefits, and, according to 

the commenter, EPA assumes that title 

V monitoring would not add any 

monitoring requirements beyond those 

required by the regulations for the 

category. The commenter said that in its 

proposal EPA proposed to require 

‘‘continuous parameter monitoring and 

periodic recording of the parameter for 

the required control device to assure 

compliance. 74 FR at 36987.’’ The 

commenter further states that ‘‘EPA 

argues that its proposed standard, by 

including these requirements, provides 

monitoring ‘sufficient to assure 

compliance’ with the requirements of 

the proposed rule. Id.’’ The commenter 

maintains that EPA made conclusory 

assertions and that the Agency failed to 

provide any evidence to demonstrate 

that the proposed monitoring 

requirements will assure compliance 

with the NESHAP for the exempt 

sources. The commenter stated that, for 

this reason as well, its claim that title V 

requirements are ‘‘unnecessarily 

burdensome’’ is arbitrary and 

capricious, and its exemption is 

unlawful and arbitrary and capricious. 

Response: As noted in the earlier 

comment, EPA used the four-factor test 

to determine if title V requirements 

were unnecessarily burdensome. In the 

first factor, EPA considers whether 

imposition of title V requirements 

would result in significant 

improvements to the compliance 

requirements that are proposed for the 

area source categories. See 74 FR 36987. 

It is in the context of this first factor that 

EPA evaluates the monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements of the proposed NESHAP 

to determine the extent to which those 

requirements are consistent with the 

requirements of title V. See 70 FR 

75323. 

The commenter asserts that ‘‘EPA 

argues that its proposed standard, by 

including these requirements, ‘provides 

monitoring sufficient to assure 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
542 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

compliance with the proposed rule.’ See 

Fed Reg. 74 At 36987.’’ In the proposal, 

we stated: 

The proposed rule requires direct 

monitoring of control device 

parameters, recordkeeping that also may 

serve as monitoring, and deviation and 

other annual reporting to assure 

compliance with the requirements. 

The monitoring component of the first 

factor favors title V exemption. For the 

management practices, this proposed 

standard provides monitoring in the 

form of recordkeeping that would assure 

compliance with the requirements of the 

proposed rule. Monitoring by means 

other than recordkeeping for the 

management practices is not practical or 

appropriate. Records are required to 

ensure that the management practices 

are followed. The rule requires 

continuous parameter monitoring and 

periodic recording of the parameter for 

the required control device to assure 

compliance. The proposed rule requires 

the owner or operator to record the date 

and results of periodic control device 

inspections, as well as any actions taken 

in response to findings of the 

inspections. See 74 FR 36987. 

As the above excerpt states, we 

required continuous parameter 

monitoring and periodic records of the 

parameter for new and existing affected 

sources when the rule requires the 

installation of such controls. This 

monitoring is in addition to the 

recordkeeping that serves as monitoring 

for the management practices. The 

commenter does not provide any 

evidence that contradicts the conclusion 

that the proposed monitoring 

requirements are sufficient to assure 

compliance with the standards in the 

rule. 

Based on the foregoing, we considered 

whether title V monitoring requirements 

would lead to significant improvements 

in the monitoring requirements in the 

proposed NESHAP and determined that 

they would not. We believe that the 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements in this area 

source rule can assure compliance. 

For the reasons described above and 

in the proposed rule, the first factor 

supports exempting this area source 

category from title V requirements. 

Assuming, for arguments sake, that the 

first factor alone cannot support the 

exemption, the four-factor balancing test 

requires EPA to examine the factors in 

combination and determine whether the 

factors, viewed together, weigh in favor 

of exemption. See 74 FR 36987. As 

explained above, we determined that 

the factors, weighed together, support 

exemption of the area source categories 

from title V. 

Comment: One commenter believes 

that EPA cannot justify exempting the 

source from title V by asserting that 

compliance with title V requirements 

poses a ‘‘significant burden.’’ According 

to the commenter, regardless of whether 

EPA regards the burden as ‘‘significant,’’ 

the Agency may not exempt a category 

from compliance with title V 

requirements unless compliance is 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome.’’ Or in the 

commenter’s words, that ‘‘the 

compliance burden is especially great.’’ 

The commenter stated that in any event, 

EPA’s claims about the alleged burden 

of compliance are entirely conclusory 

and could be applied equally to any 

major or area source category; therefore, 

the commenter claims that EPA has not 

justified why this source category 

should be exempt from title V 

permitting as opposed to any other 

category. 

Response: The commenter appears to 

take issue with the formulation of the 

second factor of the four-factor 

balancing test. Specifically, the 

commenter states that EPA must 

determine that title V compliance is 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ and not a 

‘‘significant burden,’’ as expressed in 

the second factor of the four-factor 

balancing test. 

As we have stated before, we found 

the burden placed on the prepared feed 

manufacturing area source category in 

complying with title V requirements is 

unnecessarily burdensome when we 

applied the four-factor balancing test. 

We did not re-open EPA’s interpretation 

of the term ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ 

in this rule. As explained above, we 

maintain that the Agency’s 

interpretation of the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome,’’ as set 

forth in the Exemption Rule and 

reiterated in the proposal to this rule, is 

reasonable. 

In applying the four-factor test, we 

properly analyzed the second factor, i.e., 

will title V permitting impose a 

significant burden on the area source, 

and will that burden be aggravated by 

any difficulty that the source may have 

in obtaining assistance from the 

permitting agency. See 74 FR 36988. 

EPA found that the sources would have 

a significant burden because we 

estimated that the average cost of 

obtaining and complying with a title V 

permit in general was $65,700 per 

source for a 5-year permit period. 74 FR 

36988. In addition, EPA found that most 

of the sources affected by this rule are 

small businesses. Small businesses often 

lack the technical resources to comply 

with the permitting requirements and 

the financial resources needed to hire 

the necessary staff or outside 

consultants. EPA found that not only is 

the individual cost of permitting 

significant for this source category (i.e., 

$65,700) but also that the cost to this 

source category with approximately 

1,800 sources as a whole is significant. 

Furthermore, given the number of 

affected sources in this source category 

(i.e., approximately 1,800), it would 

likely be difficult for them to obtain 

assistance from the permitting 

authorities. These specific factors for the 

affected sources alone justify that EPA 

has properly exempted the source 

category from title V. However, as 

discussed in the proposal and above, 

EPA analyzed all of the four factors in 

making its determination that these 

sources should be exempt from title V 

permitting requirements; and we found 

that the totality of these factors weighs 

heavily in favor of the exemption. 

Comment: According to one 

commenter, EPA argued that 

compliance with title V would not yield 

any gains in compliance with 

underlying requirements in the relevant 

NESHAP (74 FR 36988). The commenter 

stated that EPA’s conclusory claim 

could be made equally with respect to 

any major or area source category. 

According to the commenter, the 

Agency provides no specific reasons to 

believe that the additional 

informational, monitoring, reporting, 

certification, and enforcement 

requirements that exist in title V, but 

not in this NESHAP, would not provide 

additional compliance benefits. The 

commenter also stated that the only 

basis for EPA’s claim is, apparently, its 

beliefs that those additional 

requirements never confer additional 

compliance benefits. According to the 

commenter, by advancing such 

argument, EPA merely seeks to elevate 

its own policy judgment over Congress’ 

decisions reflected in the CAA’s text 

and legislative history. 

Response: The commenter takes out of 

context certain statements in the 

proposed rule concerning the factors 

used in the balancing test to determine 

if imposition of title V permit 

requirements is unnecessarily 

burdensome for the prepared feeds 

manufacturing area source category. The 

commenter also mischaracterizes the 

first of the four-factor balancing test 

with regard to determining whether 

imposition of title V would result in 

significant improvements in 

compliance. In addition, the commenter 

mischaracterizes the analysis in the 

third factor of the balancing test which 

instructs EPA to take into account any 

gains in compliance that would result 

from the imposition of the title V 

requirements. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 543 

First, EPA nowhere states, nor does it 

believe, that title V never confers 

additional compliance benefits as the 

commenter asserts. While EPA 

recognizes that requiring a title V permit 

offers additional compliance options, 

the statute provides that EPA must 

assess whether compliance with title V 

would be unnecessarily burdensome to 

the specific area sources at issue. For 

the source category subject to this 

rulemaking, EPA concluded that 

requiring title V permits would be 

unnecessarily burdensome. 

Second, the commenter 

mischaracterizes the first factor by 

asserting that EPA must demonstrate 

that title V will provide no additional 

compliance benefits. The first factor 

calls for a consideration of ‘‘whether 

title V would result in significant 

improvements to the compliance 

requirements, including monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting, that are 

proposed for an area source category.’’ 

Thus, contrary to the commenter’s 

assertion, the inquiry under the first 

factor is not whether title V will provide 

any compliance benefit, but rather 

whether it will provide significant 

improvements in compliance 

requirements. 

The monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements in the rule are 

sufficient to assure compliance with the 

requirements of this rule, consistent 

with the goal of title V permitting. For 

example, in the Initial Notification, the 

source must include information about 

the facility and its operations. The 

source must also certify how it is 

complying and that it has complied 

with the required management practices 

and associated recordkeeping 

requirements. The source must further 

certify that it has installed controls, if 

necessary to meet the final standards 

and that it is monitoring the controls, as 

required by the final rule and keeping 

all necessary records regarding the 

inspections of the controls and any 

corrective actions taken as a result of 

seeing changes in the operation of the 

control equipment. See section 63.11624 

in the final rule. The source must also 

keep records and conduct inspections to 

document that it is complying with the 

management practices finalized in this 

rule. See section 63.11624 in the final 

rule. The source must monitor and 

demonstrate cyclone performance 

efficiency and, if applicable, must begin 

corrective action and record the 

specifics about the corrective action 

upon seeing any deviation in the 

pressure drop or fan amperage in the 

control equipment. The source must 

also submit deviation reports to the 

permitting agency in the annual report 

if there has been a deviation in the 

requirements of the rule. See section 

63.11624 in the final rule. EPA believes 

that these requirements in the rule itself 

provide sufficient basis to assure 

compliance with the final emission 

standards, and does not believe that the 

title V requirements, if applicable to 

these sources, would offer significant 

improvements in the compliance of the 

sources with the rule. 

Third, the commenter incorrectly 

characterizes our statements in the 

proposed rule concerning our 

application of the third factor. Under 

the third factor, EPA evaluates ‘‘whether 

the costs of title V permitting for the 

area source category would be justified, 

taking into consideration any potential 

gains in compliance likely to occur for 

such sources.’’ Contrary to what the 

commenter alleges, EPA did not state in 

the proposed rule that compliance with 

title V would not yield any gains in 

compliance with the underlying 

requirements in the relevant NESHAP, 

nor does factor three require such a 

determination. Instead, consistent with 

the third factor, we considered whether 

the costs of title V are justified in light 

of any potential gains in compliance. In 

other words, EPA must view the costs 

of title V permitting requirements, 

considering any improvement in 

compliance above what the rule 

requires. EPA reviewed the area source 

category at issue and determined that 

the vast majority of the approximately 

1,800 sources that would be subject to 

the rule currently do not have a title V 

permit. As stated in the proposal, EPA 

estimated that the average cost of 

obtaining and complying with a title V 

permit was $65,700 per source for a 5- 

year permit period, including fees. See 

Information Collection Request for Part 

70 Operating Permit Regulations, 72 FR 

32290, June 12, 2007, EPA ICR Number 

1587.07. Based on this information, EPA 

determined that there is a significant 

cost burden to the industry to require 

title V permitting for all the sources 

subject to the rule. In addition, in 

analyzing factor one, EPA found that 

imposition of the title V requirements 

offers no significant improvements in 

compliance. In considering the third 

factor, we stated in part that, ‘‘Because 

the costs of compliance with title V are 

so high, and the potential for gains in 

compliance is low, title V permitting is 

not justified for this source category. 

Accordingly, the third factor supports 

the proposed title V exemptions for this 

area source category.’’ See 74 FR 36988. 

Most importantly, EPA considered all 

four factors in the balancing test in 

determining whether title V was 

unnecessarily burdensome on the 

prepared feeds manufacturing area 

source category. EPA found it 

reasonable after considering all four 

factors to exempt this source category 

from the permitting requirements in title 

V. Because the commenter’s statements 

do not demonstrate a flaw in EPA’s 

application of the four-factor balancing 

test to the specific facts of the source 

category at issue here, the comments 

provide no basis for the Agency to 

reconsider its proposal to exempt this 

area source category from title V. 

Comment: According to one 

commenter, ‘‘[t]he agency does not 

identify any aspect of any of the 

underlying NESHAP showing that with 

respect to these specific NESHAP— 

unlike all the other major and area 

source NESHAP it has issued without 

title V exemptions—title V compliance 

is unnecessary.’’ Instead, according to 

the commenter, EPA merely pointed to 

existing State requirements and the 

potential for actions by States and EPA 

that are generally applicable to all 

categories (along with some small 

business and voluntary programs). The 

commenter said that, absent a showing 

by EPA that distinguishes the sources it 

proposes to exempt from other sources, 

however, the Agency’s argument boils 

down to the claim that it generally 

views title V requirements as 

unnecessary. The commenter stated 

that, while this may be EPA’s view, it 

was not Congress’ view when Congress 

enacted title V, and a general view that 

title V is unnecessary does not suffice to 

show that title V compliance is 

unnecessarily burdensome. 

Response: The commenter again takes 

issue with the Agency’s test for 

determining whether title V is 

unnecessarily burdensome, as 

developed in the Exemption Rule. Our 

interpretation of the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ is not the 

subject of this rulemaking. In any event, 

as explained above, we believe the 

Agency’s interpretation of the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ is a 

reasonable one. To the extent the 

commenter asserts that our application 

of the fourth factor is flawed, we 

disagree. The fourth factor involves a 

determination as to whether there are 

implementation and enforcement 

programs in place that are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the rule without 

relying on the title V permits. In 

discussing the fourth factor in the 

proposal, EPA states that prior to 

delegating implementation and 

enforcement to a State, EPA must ensure 

that the State has programs in place to 

enforce the rule. EPA believes that these 

programs will be sufficient to assure 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
544 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

compliance with the rule. EPA also 

retains authority to enforce this 

NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 

112, 113 and 114. EPA also noted other 

factors in the proposal that together are 

sufficient to assure compliance with this 

area source. 

The commenter argues that EPA 

cannot exempt this area source category 

from title V permitting requirements 

because ‘‘[t]he agency does not identify 

any aspect of any of the underlying 

NESHAP showing that with respect to 

these specific NESHAP—unlike all the 

other major and area source NESHAP it 

has issued without title V exemptions— 

title V compliance is unnecessary’’ 

(emphasis added). As an initial matter, 

EPA cannot exempt major sources from 

title V permitting. 42 U.S.C. 502(a). As 

for area sources, the standard that the 

commenter proposes—that EPA must 

show that ‘‘title V compliance is 

unnecessary’’—is not consistent with 

the standard the Agency established in 

the Exemption Rule and applied in the 

proposed rule in determining if title V 

requirements are unnecessarily 

burdensome for the source category at 

issue. 

Furthermore, we disagree that the 

basis for excluding the area source 

prepared feeds manufacturing category 

from title V requirements is generally 

applicable to any source category. As 

explained in the proposal preamble and 

above, we balanced the four factors 

considering the facts and circumstances 

of the source category at issue in this 

rule. For example, in assessing whether 

the costs of requiring the sources to 

obtain a title V permit was burdensome, 

we concluded that because the vast 

majority of the sources did not have a 

title V permit, the costs imposed on the 

source category were significant 

compared to the additional compliance 

benefits offered by the title V permitting 

process. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the legislative history of the CAA shows 

that Congress did not intend EPA to 

exempt source categories from 

compliance with title V unless doing so 

would not adversely affect public 

health, welfare, or the environment. See 

74 FR 36988. Nonetheless, according to 

the commenter, EPA does not make any 

showing that its exemption would not 

have adverse impacts on health, welfare 

and the environment. The commenter 

stated that, instead, EPA offered only 

the conclusory assertion that ‘‘the level 

of control would remain the same’’ 

whether title V permits are required or 

not 74 FR 36988–89. The commenter 

continued by stating that EPA relied 

entirely on the conclusory arguments 

advanced elsewhere in its proposal that 

compliance with title V would not yield 

additional compliance with the 

underlying NESHAP. The commenter 

stated that those arguments are wrong 

for the reasons given above, and 

therefore EPA’s claims about public 

health, welfare and the environment are 

wrong too. The commenter also stated 

that Congress enacted title V for a 

reason: To assure compliance with all 

applicable requirements and to 

empower citizens to get information and 

enforce the CAA. The commenter said 

that those benefits—of which EPA’s 

proposed rule deprives the public— 

would improve compliance with the 

underlying standards and thus have 

benefits for public health, welfare and 

the environment. According to the 

commenter, EPA has not demonstrated 

that these benefits are unnecessary with 

respect to any specific source category, 

but again simply rests on its own 

apparent belief that they are never 

necessary. The commenter concluded 

that, for the reasons given above, the 

attempt to substitute EPA’s judgment for 

Congress’ is unlawful and arbitrary. 

Response: Congress gave the 

Administrator the authority to exempt 

area sources from compliance with title 

V if, in his or her discretion, the 

Administrator ‘‘finds that compliance 

with [title V] is impracticable, 

infeasible, or unnecessarily 

burdensome.’’ See CAA section 502(a). 

EPA has interpreted one of the three 

justifications for exempting area 

sources, ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’, 

as requiring consideration of the four 

factors discussed above. EPA applied 

these four factors to the area source 

category subject to this rule and 

concluded that requiring title V for this 

area source category would be 

unnecessarily burdensome. In addition 

to determining that title V would be 

unnecessarily burdensome on the 

prepared feed manufacturing area 

source category, EPA also considered 

whether exempting the area source 

category would adversely affect public 

health, welfare or the environment. As 

explained in the proposal preamble, we 

concluded that exempting the area 

source category at issue in this rule 

would not adversely affect public 

health, welfare or the environment 

because the level of control would be 

the same even if title V applied. We 

further explained in the proposal 

preamble that the title V permit program 

does not generally impose new 

substantive air quality control 

requirements on sources, but instead 

requires that certain procedural 

measures be followed, particularly with 

respect to determining compliance with 

applicable requirements. The 

commenter has not provided any 

information that exemption of this area 

source category from title V will 

adversely affect public health, welfare 

or the environment. 

VI. Impacts of the Final Standards 

We project that the baseline PM 

emissions from the estimated 1,800 

facilities in the prepared feeds source 

category are approximately 11,000 tons/ 

yr, with approximatley 11,000 tons/yr of 

PM2.5, 195 tons/yr of manganese and 

just over 8 tons/yr of chromium. We 

believe that management practices are 

already being implemented throughout 

the industry. Therefore, we do not 

expect any additional reductions in 

chromium compound, manganese 

compound, or general PM emissions 

from these measures. We estimate that 

the requirement to install cyclones on 

the pelleting processes at the facilities 

with average daily feed production 

levels exceeding 50 tpd will result in 

emission reductions of around 1,100 

tons/yr of PM, 100 tons/yr of PM2.5, and 

approximately 20 tons/yr of manganese 

and chromium emissions. While 

cyclones do remove PM from the air 

stream, these solids are typically 

recycled back to the process. Therefore, 

we do not anticipate any significant 

indirect or secondary air impacts of this 

rule as proposed. In addition, we do not 

expect any non-air health, 

environmental, or energy impacts. 

As noted above, we believe all 

prepared feed manufacturing facilities 

already implement the proposed 

management practices. Therefore, there 

will be no additional costs for these 

measures. We estimate that the 

nationwide capital costs for the 

installation of cyclones on the pelleting 

cooling operations at the large facilities 

will be around $2.5 million. The 

associated annual costs are estimated to 

be just over $3 million/year. 

Many of the plants in this analysis 

have fewer than 500 employees, which 

is the threshold to be considered 

‘‘small’’ by the Small Business 

Administration. It is currently estimated 

that under 2 percent of the facilities (26 

facilities) in the category would 

potentially need to install new cyclones 

under the proposed regulatory 

alternative. The potential impact on the 

industry as a percentage of the value of 

shipments is small. Under the proposed 

regulatory alternative, the largest 

potential impact is estimated as 0.96 

percent of shipments for a subset of 

firms with an overall impact of 0.94 

percent of shipments for the industry as 

a whole. As a result, this action is not 

expected to have a significant impact on 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 545 

a substantial number of small entities or 

the economy as a whole, regardless of 

whether or not the firms in the industry 

are able to pass along any increases in 

their costs to the consumers. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under the terms of Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993) because it may raise novel legal or 

policy issues and is, therefore, subject to 

review under the Executive Order. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to OMB for review under Executive 

Order 12866 and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this final rule have been 

submitted for approval to OMB under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

501 et seq. The Information Collection 

Request (ICR) document prepared by 

EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 

2354.02. 

The recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in this final rule are based 

on the requirements in EPA’s NESHAP 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A). The recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements in the General 

Provisions are mandatory pursuant to 

section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). 

All information other than emissions 

data submitted to EPA pursuant to the 

information collection requirements for 

which a claim of confidentiality is made 

is safeguarded according to CAA section 

114(c) and the Agency’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

This NESHAP requires Prepared 

Feeds Manufacturing area sources to 

submit an Initial Notification and a 

Notification of Compliance Status 

according to the requirements in 40 CFR 

63.9 of the General Provisions (subpart 

A). The annual burden for this 

information collection averaged over the 

first three years of this ICR is estimated 

to be a total of 27,000 labor hours per 

year at a cost of $1.7 million or 

approximately $980 per facility. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA regulations in 40 CFR 

are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

For the purposes of assessing the 

impacts of this rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business that meets the Small Business 

Administration size standards for small 

businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) 

a small governmental jurisdiction that is 

a government of a city, county, town, 

school district, or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this rule on small entities, I 

certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule is estimated to impact a total 

of almost 1,800 area source prepared 

feeds manufacturing facilities. We 

estimate that all these facilities may be 

small entities. We have determined that 

small entity compliance costs, as 

assessed by the facilities’ cost-to-sales 

ratio, are expected to be less than 0.004 

percent for the estimated 26 facilities 

that would not initially be in 

compliance. Although this final rule 

contains requirements for new area 

sources, we are not aware of any new 

area sources being constructed now or 

planned in the next three years, and 

consequently, we did not estimate any 

impacts for new sources. 

Although this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce 

such impact. The standards represent 

practices and controls that are common 

throughout the prepared feeds 

manufacturing industry. The standards 

also require only the essential 

recordkeeping and reporting needed to 

demonstrate and verify compliance. 

These standards were developed in 

consultation with small business 

representatives on the State and 

national level and the trade associations 

that represent small businesses. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This final rule does not contain a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and Tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or to the private sector 

in any one year. This rule is not 

expected to impact State, local, or Tribal 

governments. The nationwide 

annualized cost of this rule for affected 

industrial sources is around $3 million/ 

yr. Thus, this rule would not be subject 

to the requirements of sections 202 and 

205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act (UMRA). 

This final rule would also not be 

subject to the requirements of section 

203 of UMRA because it contains no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The rule would not apply 

to such governments and would impose 

no obligations upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This rule does 

not impose any requirements on State 

and local governments. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this final 

rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This final rule imposes no 

requirements on Tribal governments; 

thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 5– 

501 of the Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This action is 

not subject to EO 13045 because it is 

based solely on technology 

performance. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
546 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This final rule is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001) because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Further, 

we have concluded that this rule is not 

likely to have any adverse energy 

effects. Existing energy requirements for 

this industry would not be significantly 

impacted by the additional controls or 

other equipment that may be required 

by this rule. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

The rulemaking involves technical 

standards. Therefore, the Agency 

conducted a search to identify 

potentially applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. However, we 

identified no such standards, and none 

were brought to our attention in 

comments. Therefore, EPA has decided 

to use technical standard Method 5 of 

40 CFR part 60, Appendix A in the 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area 

Sources: Prepared Feeds 

Manufacturing—40 CFR part 63, subpart 

DDDDDD. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule would not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population. This rule 

establishes national standards for the 

Prepared Feeds Manufacturing area 

source category; this will reduce HAP 

emissions, therefore decreasing the 

amount of emissions to which all 

affected populations are exposed. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 

5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this final rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of this final rule in the 

Federal Register. A major rule cannot 

take effect until 60 days after it is 

published in the Federal Register. This 

action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule will 

be effective on January 5, 2010. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: December 16, 2009. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

■ 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 Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Area Sources: Prepared Feeds 

Manufacturing 

Applicability and Compliance Dates 

Sec. 

63.11619 Am I subject to this subpart? 

63.11620 What are my compliance dates? 

Standards, Monitoring, and Compliance 

Requirements 

63.11621 What are the standards for new 

and existing prepared feeds 

manufacturing facilities? 

63.11622 What are the monitoring 

requirements for new and existing 

sources? 

63.11623 What are the testing 

requirements? 

63.11624 What are the notification, 

reporting, and recordkeeping 

requirements? 

Other Requirements and Information 

63.11625 What parts of the General 

Provisions apply to my facility? 

63.11626 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

63.11627 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

63.11628—63.11638 [Reserved] 

Tables to Subpart DDDDDDD of Part 63 

Table 1 to Subpart DDDDDDD of Part 63— 

Applicability of General Provisions to 

Prepared Feeds Manufacturing Area 

Sources 

Subpart DDDDDDD—National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Area Sources: Prepared 

Feeds Manufacturing 

Applicability and Compliance Dates 

§ 63.11619 Am I subject to this subpart? 

(a) You are subject to this subpart if 

you own or operate a prepared feeds 

manufacturing facility that uses a 

material containing chromium or a 

material containing manganese and is 

an area source of emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP). 

(b) The provisions of this subpart 

apply to each new and existing prepared 

feeds manufacturing affected source. A 

prepared feeds manufacturing affected 

source is the collection of all equipment 

and activities necessary to produce 

animal feed from the point in the 

process where a material containing 

chromium or a material containing 

manganese is added, to the point where 

the finished animal feed product leaves 

the facility. This includes, but is not 

limited to, areas where materials 

containing chromium and manganese 

are stored, areas where materials 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 547 

containing chromium and manganese 

are temporarily stored prior to addition 

to the feed at the mixer, mixing and 

grinding processes, pelleting and pellet 

cooling processes, packing and bagging 

processes, crumblers and screens, bulk 

loading operations, and all conveyors 

and other equipment that transfer the 

feed materials throughout the 

manufacturing facility. 

(1) A prepared feeds manufacturing 

affected source is existing if you 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction of the facility on or 

before July 27, 2009. 

(2) A prepared feeds manufacturing 

affected source is new if you 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction of the facility after July 

27, 2009. 

(3) A collection of equipment and 

activities necessary to produce animal 

feed at a prepared feeds manufacturing 

facility becomes an affected source 

when you commence using a material 

containing chromium or a material 

containing manganese. 

(c) An affected source is no longer 

subject to this subpart if the facility 

stops using materials containing 

chromium or manganese. 

(d) This subpart does not apply to the 

facilities identified in paragraphs (d)(1) 

and (2) of this section. 

(1) Prepared feeds manufacturing 

facilities that do not add any materials 

containing chromium or manganese to 

any product manufactured at the 

facility. 

(2) Research or laboratory facilities as 

defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA). 

(e) You are exempt from the 

obligation to obtain a permit under 40 

CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided 

you are not otherwise required by law 

to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) 

or 40 CFR 71.3. Notwithstanding the 

previous sentence, you must continue to 

comply with the provisions of this 

subpart. 

§ 63.11620 What are my compliance 

dates? 

(a) If you own or operate an existing 

affected source, you must achieve 

compliance with the applicable 

provisions of this subpart by no later 

than January 5, 2012. 

(b) If you own or operate a new 

affected source, you must achieve 

compliance with the applicable 

provisions of this subpart by January 5, 

2010, or upon startup of your affected 

source, whichever is later. 

(c) If you own or operate a facility that 

becomes an affected source in 

accordance with § 63.11619 after the 

applicable compliance date in 

paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, you 

must achieve compliance with the 

applicable provisions of this subpart by 

the date that you commence using a 

material containing manganese or a 

material containing chromium. 

(d) If the average daily feed 

production level exceeds 50 tons per 

day for a calendar year for a facility not 

complying with the requirement in 

§ 63.11621(e) to install and operate a 

cyclone to control emissions from 

pelleting operations, you must comply 

with § 63.11621(e) and all associated 

requirements by July 1 of the year 

following the one-year period. 

Standards, Monitoring, and 

Compliance Requirements 

§ 63.11621 What are the standards for new 

and existing prepared feed manufacturing 

facilities? 

You must comply with the 

management practices and standards in 

paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section 

at all times. 

(a) In all areas of the affected source 

where materials containing chromium 

or manganese are stored, used, or 

handled, you must comply with the 

management practices in paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) You must perform housekeeping 

measures to minimize excess dust. 

These measures must include, but not 

be limited to, the practices specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this 

section. 

(i) You must use either an industrial 

vacuum system or manual sweeping to 

reduce the amount of dust; 

(ii) At least once per month, you must 

remove dust from walls, ledges, and 

equipment using low pressure air or by 

other means, and then sweep or vacuum 

the area; 

(iii) You must keep doors shut except 

during normal ingress and egress. 

(2) You must maintain and operate all 

process equipment in accordance with 

manufacturer’s specifications and in a 

manner to minimize dust creation. 

(b) You must store any raw materials 

containing chromium or manganese in 

closed containers. 

(c) The mixer where materials 

containing chromium or manganese are 

added must be covered at all times 

when mixing is occurring, except when 

the materials are being added to the 

mixer. Materials containing chromium 

or manganese must be added to the 

mixer in a manner that minimizes 

emissions. 

(d) For the bulk loading process 

where prepared feed products 

containing chromium or manganese are 

loaded into trucks or railcars, you must 

use a device at the loadout end of each 

bulk loader to lessen fugitive emissions 

by reducing the distance between the 

loading arm and the truck or railcar. 

(e) For the pelleting operations at 

prepared feeds manufacturing facilities 

with an average daily feed production 

level exceeding 50 tons per day, you 

must capture emissions and route them 

to a cyclone designed to reduce 

emissions of particulate matter by 95 

percent or greater. You must also 

comply with the provisions in 

paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) You must demonstrate that the 

cyclone is designed to reduce emissions 

of particulate matter by 95 percent or 

greater using one of the methods 

specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through 

(iii) of this section. 

(i) Manufacturer specifications; 

(ii) Certification by a professional 

engineer or responsible official; or 

(iii) A performance test conducted in 

accordance with § 63.11623 of this 

section. 

(2) You must establish an inlet flow 

rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan 

amperage range that represents proper 

operation of the cyclone in accordance 

with the applicable requirement in 

paragraphs (e)(2)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this 

section. 

(i) If you demonstrate the cyclone 

design efficiency using manufacturer 

specifications in accordance with 

paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section, the 

inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure 

drop, or fan amperage range that 

represents proper operation of the 

cyclone must be provided by the 

manufacturer. 

(ii) If you demonstrate the cyclone 

design efficiency using certification by a 

professional engineer or responsible 

official in accordance with paragraph 

(e)(1)(ii) of this section, this certification 

must include calculations to establish 

an inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, 

pressure drop, or fan amperage range 

that represents proper operation of the 

cyclone. 

(iii) If you demonstrate the cyclone 

design efficiency using a performance 

test in accordance with paragraph 

(e)(1)(iii) of this section, you must 

monitor the inlet flow rate, inlet 

velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage 

during the test and establish a range that 

represents proper operation of the 

cyclone based on the data obtained 

during the test. 

(3) You must maintain and operate 

the cyclone in accordance with 

manufacturer’s specifications. If 

manufacturer’s specifications are not 

available, you must develop and follow 

standard maintenance and operating 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
548 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

procedures that ensure proper operation 

of the cyclone. 

§ 63.11622 What are the monitoring 

requirements for new and existing sources? 

(a) If you own or operate an affected 

source required 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 inspections of each 

device to ensure it is in proper working 

condition. 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 required by § 63.11621(e) to 

install and operate a cyclone to control 

emissions from pelleting operations, 

you must comply with the inspection 

and monitoring requirements in 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) You must perform quarterly 

inspections of the cyclone for corrosion, 

erosion, or any other damage that could 

result in air in-leakage, and record the 

results in accordance with 

§ 63.11624(c)(5)(ii). 

(2) You must monitor inlet flow rate, 

inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan 

amperage at least once per day when the 

pelleting process is in operation. You 

must also record the inlet flow rate, 

inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan 

amperage in accordance with 

§ 63.11624(c)(5)(iii). 

§ 63.11623 What are the testing 

requirements? 

(a) If you are demonstrating that the 

cyclone required 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), you must conduct a 

test in accordance with paragraph (b) of 

this section and calculate the percent 

reduction in accordance with paragraph 

(c) of this section. 

(b) You must use Method 5 in 

Appendix A to part 60 to determine the 

particulate matter mass rate at the inlet 

and outlet of the cyclone. You must 

conduct at least three runs at the 

cyclone inlet and three runs at the 

cyclone outlet. Each run must have a 

sampling time of at least 60 minutes and 

a sample volume of at least 0.85 dscm 

(30 dscf). 

(c) You must calculate the percent 

particulate matter reduction using 

Equation 1. 

PM RED M M

M x INLET OUTLET

INLET

= ⎛ −

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ 100 Equation 1

Where: 

PM RED = particulate matter reduction, 

percent; 

MINLET = Mass of particulate matter at the 

inlet of the cyclone, dry basis, corrected 

to standard conditions, g/min; 

MOUTLET = Mass of particulate matter at the 

outlet of the cyclone, dry basis, corrected 

to standard conditions, g/min; 

§ 63.11624 What are the notification, 

reporting, and recordkeeping 

requirements? 

(a) Notifications. You must submit the 

notifications identified in paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Initial Notification. If you are the 

owner of an affected source you must 

submit an Initial Notification no later 

than May 5, 2010, or 120 days after you 

become subject to this subpart, 

whichever is later. The Initial 

Notification must include the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section. 

(i) The name, address, phone number 

and e-mail address of the owner and 

operator; 

(ii) The address (physical location) of 

the affected source; 

(iii) An identification of the relevant 

standard (i.e., this subpart); and 

(iv) A brief description of the 

operation. 

(2) Notification of Compliance Status. 

If you are the owner of an existing 

affected source, you must submit a 

Notification of Compliance Status in 

accordance with § 63.9(h) of the General 

Provisions on or before May 4, 2012. If 

you are the owner or operator of a new 

affected source, you must submit a 

Notification of Compliance Status 

within 120 days of initial startup, or by 

May 4, 2012, whichever is later. If you 

own or operate an affected source that 

becomes an affected source in 

accordance with § 63.11619(b)(3) after 

the applicable compliance date in 

§ 63.11620 (a) or (b), you must submit a 

Notification of Compliance Status 

within 120 days of the date that you 

commence using materials containing 

manganese or chromium. This 

Notification of Compliance Status must 

include the information specified in 

paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this 

section. 

(i) Your company’s name and address; 

(ii) A statement by a responsible 

official with that official’s name, title, 

phone number, e-mail address and 

signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, 

and completeness of the notification 

and a statement of whether the source 

has complied with all the relevant 

standards and other requirements of this 

subpart; 

(iii) If you own or operate an affected 

source required by § 63.11621(e) to 

install and operate a cyclone to control 

emissions from pelleting operations, the 

inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure 

drop, or fan amperage range that 

constitutes proper operation of the 

cyclone determined in accordance with 

§ 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 pelleting operations 

because your initial average daily feed 

production level was 50 tpd or less, 

documentation of your initial daily 

pelleting production level 

determination. 

(b) Annual compliance certification 

report. You must, by March 1 of each 

year, prepare an annual compliance 

certification report for the previous 

calendar year containing the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (b)(6) of this section. 

(1) Your company’s name and 

address. 

(2) A statement by a responsible 

official with that official’s name, title, 

phone number, e-mail address and 

signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, 

and completeness of the notification 

and a statement of whether the source 

has complied with all the relevant 

standards and other requirements of this 

subpart. 

(3) If the source is not in compliance, 

include a description of deviations from 

the applicable requirements, the time 

periods during which the deviations 

occurred, and the corrective actions 

taken. 

(4) Identification of all instances 

when the daily inlet flow rate, inlet 

velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage 

is outside range that constitutes proper 

operation of the cyclone submitted as 

part of your Notification of Compliance 

Status. In these instances, include the 

time periods when this occurred and the 

corrective actions taken. 

(5) If you own or operate an affected 

source that is not subject to the 

requirement in § 63.11621(e) to install 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2ER05JA10.004</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 549 

and operate a cyclone to control 

emissions from pelleting operations 

because your average daily feed 

production level was 50 tpd or less, 

notification if your average daily feed 

production level for the previous year 

exceeded 50 tpd. 

(6) If you own or operate an affected 

source that was subject to the 

requirement in § 63.11621(e) to install 

and operate a cyclone to control 

emissions from pelleting operations, 

notification if your average daily feed 

production level for the previous year 

was 50 tpd or less and that you are no 

longer complying with § 63.11621(e). 

(c) Records. You must maintain the 

records specified in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (5) of this section in accordance 

with paragraphs (c)(6) through (8) of this 

section. 

(1) As required in § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv), 

you must keep a copy of each 

notification that you submitted to 

comply with this subpart in accordance 

with paragraph (a) of this section, and 

all documentation supporting any Initial 

Notification or Notification of 

Compliance Status that you submitted. 

(2) You must keep a copy of each 

Annual Compliance Certification 

prepared in accordance with paragraph 

(b) of this section. 

(3) For each device used to comply 

with the requirements in § 63.11621(d), 

you must keep the records of all 

inspections including the information 

identified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through 

(iii) of this section. 

(i) The date, place, and time of each 

inspection; 

(ii) Person performing the inspection; 

(iii) Results of the inspection, 

including the date, time, and duration of 

the corrective action period from the 

time the inspection indicated a problem 

to the time of the indication that the 

device was replaced or restored to 

operation. 

(4) For each cyclone used to comply 

with the requirements in § 63.11621(e), 

you must keep the records in paragraphs 

(c)(4)(i) through (v) of this section. 

(i) If you demonstrate that the cyclone 

is designed to reduce emission of 

particulate matter by 95 percent or 

greater by manufacturer’s specifications 

in accordance with § 63.11621(e)(1(i), 

you must keep the records specified in 

paragraphs (c)(4)(i)(A) through (C) of 

this section. 

(A) Information from the 

manufacturer regarding the design 

efficiency of the cyclone, 

(B) The inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, 

pressure drop, or fan amperage range 

that represents proper operation of the 

cyclone, 

(C) The operation and maintenance 

procedures to ensure proper operation 

of the cyclone. 

(ii) If you demonstrate that the 

cyclone is designed to reduce emissions 

of particulate matter by 95 percent or 

greater by certification by a professional 

engineer in accordance with paragraph 

§ 63.11621(e)(1)(ii), you must keep the 

records specified in paragraphs 

(c)(4)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section. 

(A) Certification regarding the design 

efficiency of the cyclone, along with 

supporting information, 

(B) The inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, 

pressure drop, or fan amperage range 

that represents proper operation of the 

cyclone, 

(C) The standard maintenance and 

operating procedures that ensure proper 

operation of the cyclone. 

(iii) If you demonstrate that the 

cyclone is designed to reduce emissions 

of particulate matter by 95 percent or 

greater by a performance in accordance 

with paragraph § 63.11621(e)(1)(iii), you 

must keep the records specified in 

paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of 

this section. 

(A) Results of the testing conducted in 

accordance with § 63.11623, 

(B) The inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, 

pressure drop, or fan amperage range 

that represents proper operation of the 

cyclone, 

(C) The standard maintenance and 

operating procedures that ensure proper 

operation of the cyclone. 

(iv) Records of all quarterly 

inspections including the information 

identified in paragraphs (c)(4)(iv)(A) 

through (C) of this section. 

(A) The date, place, and time of each 

inspection; 

(B) Person performing the inspection; 

(C) Results of the inspection, 

including the date, time, and duration of 

the corrective action period from the 

time the inspection indicated a problem 

to the time of the indication that the 

cyclone was restored to proper 

operation. 

(v) Records of the daily inlet flow rate, 

inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan 

amperage measurements, along with the 

date, time, and duration of the 

correction action period from the time 

the monitoring indicated a problem to 

the time of the indication that the 

cyclone was restored to proper 

operation. 

(5) If you own or operate an affected 

source that is not subject to the 

requirement in § 63.11621(e) to install 

and operate a cyclone to control 

emissions from pelleting operations 

because your average daily feed 

production level is 50 tpd or less, feed 

production records to enable the 

determination of the average daily feed 

production level. 

(6) Your records must be in a form 

suitable and readily available for 

expeditious review, according to 

§ 63.10(b)(1). 

(7) As specified in § 63.10(b)(1), you 

must keep each record for 5 years 

following the date of each recorded 

action. 

(8) You must keep each record onsite 

for at least 2 years after the date of each 

recorded action according to 

§ 63.10(b)(1). You may keep the records 

offsite for the remaining 3 years. 

(d) If you no longer use materials that 

contain manganese or chromium after 

January 5, 2010, you must submit a 

Notification in accordance with 

§ 63.11619(c) which includes the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(d)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Your company’s name and 

address; 

(2) A statement by a responsible 

official indicating that the facility no 

longer uses materials that contain 

chromium or manganese. This statement 

should also include an effective date for 

the termination of use of materials that 

contain chromium or manganese, and 

the responsible official’s name, title, 

phone number, e-mail address and 

signature. 

Other Requirements and Information 

§ 63.11625 What parts of the General 

Provisions apply to my facility? 

Table 1 of this subpart shows which 

parts of the General Provisions in 

§§ 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
550 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 63.11626 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

(a) This subpart can be implemented 

and enforced by EPA or a delegated 

authority such as your State, local, or 

Tribal agency. If the EPA Administrator 

has delegated authority to your State, 

local, or Tribal agency, then that agency 

has the authority to implement and 

enforce this subpart. You should contact 

your EPA Regional Office to find out if 

implementation and enforcement of this 

subpart is delegated to your State, local, 

or Tribal agency. 

(b) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority of this subpart to 

a State, local, or Tribal agency under 40 

CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities 

contained in paragraph (c) of this 

section are retained by the EPA 

Administrator and are not transferred to 

the State, local, or Tribal agency. 

(c) The authorities that cannot be 

delegated to State, local, or Tribal 

agencies are specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (5) of this section. 

(1) Approval of an alternative 

nonopacity emissions standard under 

§ 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 under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A 

‘‘major change to test method’’ 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; prepared animal 

feed; chopped, crushed, or ground 

barley feed; prepared bird feed; blended 

animal feed; bone meal prepared as feed 

for animals and fowls; cattle feeds, 

supplements, concentrates, and 

premixes; prepared chicken feeds; cattle 

feed citrus pulp; complete livestock 

feed; custom milled animal feed; dairy 

cattle feeds supplements, concentrates, 

and premixes; earthworm food and 

bedding; animal feed concentrates; 

animal feed premixes; animal feed 

supplements; prepared animal feeds; 

specialty animal (e.g., guinea pig, mice, 

mink) feeds; fish food for feeding fish; 

custom ground grains for animal feed; 

cubed hay; kelp meal and pellets animal 

feed; laboratory animal feed; livestock 

feeds, supplements, concentrates and 

premixes; alfalfa meal; bone meal 

prepared as feed for animals and fowls; 

livestock micro and macro premixes; 

mineral feed supplements; animal 

mineral supplements; pet food; poultry 

feeds, supplements, and concentrates; 

rabbit food; shell crushed and ground 

animal feed; swine feed; swine feed 

supplements, concentrates, and 

premixes; and prepared turkey feeds. 

Feed products produced for dogs and 

cats are not considered animal feed for 

the purposes of this subpart. 

Average daily feed production level 

means the average amount of animal 

feed products produced each day over 

an annual period. The initial 

determination of the average daily feed 

production level is based on the oneyear period prior to the compliance date 

for existing sources, or the design rate 

for new sources. The subsequent 

average daily feed production levels are 

determined annually and are based on 

the amount of animal feed products 

produced in a calendar year divided by 

the number of days in which the 

production processes were in operation. 

Cyclone means a mechanically aided 

collector that uses inertia to separate 

particulate matter from the gas stream as 

it spirals through the cyclone. 

Material containing chromium means 

a material that contains chromium (Cr, 

atomic number 24) in amounts greater 

than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight. 

Material containing manganese 

means a material that contains 

manganese (Mn, atomic number 25) in 

amounts greater than or equal to 1.0 

percent by weight. 

Pelleting operations means all 

operations that make pelleted animal 

feed, including but not limited to, steam 

conditioning, die-casting, drying, 

cooling, and crumbling, and 

granulation. 

Prepared feeds manufacturing facility 

means a facility that is primarily 

engaged in manufacturing animal feed. 

A facility is primarily engaged in 

manufacturing animal feed if the 

production of animal feed comprises 

greater than 50 percent of the total 

production of the facility on an annual 

basis. Facilities primarily engaged in 

raising or feeding animals are not 

prepared feed manufacturing facilities. 

Facilities engaged in the growing of 

agricultural crops that are used in the 

manufacturing of feed are not 

considered prepared feeds 

manufacturing facilities. 

§ 63.11628–63.11638 [Reserved] 

Tables to Subpart DDDDDDD of Part 63 

Table 1 to Subpart DDDDDDD of Part 

63—Applicability of General Provisions 

to Prepared Feeds Manufacturing Area 

Sources 

As required in § 63.11619, you must 

meet each requirement in the following 

table that applies to you. 

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. 

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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 551 

Citation Subject Applies to Subpart DDDDDDD? 

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. 

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

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2