DRAFT – 

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE December 1, 2009 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080; FRL-] 

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 [INSERT DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed in this rule is 

effective as of [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action 

under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the Federal Docket Management 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 2 December 1, 2009 

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 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 3 December 1, 2009 

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 LowIncome Populations 

 K. Congressional Review Act 

I. General Information 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 4 December 1, 2009 

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 

code1

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). 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 5 December 1, 2009 

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: 

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 [INSERT 

DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the

requirements established by this final rule may not be 

challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 6 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 7 December 1, 2009 

(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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 8 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 9 December 1, 2009 

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 issue standards for 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)). 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 10 December 1, 2009 

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. 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 11 December 1, 2009 

means that the animal feed makes up at least half of the 

facility’s annual production. 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 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. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 12 December 1, 2009 

B. Standards and Compliance Requirements

 The final rule retains the specific housekeeping 

management practices discussed in the proposed rule. Those 

management practices require sources to 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 13 December 1, 2009 

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. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 14 December 1, 2009 

 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 at least half of 

the annual production is dedicated to animal feed (not 

including dog and cat feed), supplements, premixes, and 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 15 December 1, 2009 

other animal feed ingredients. 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 [INSERT DATE TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. A new source is any 

affected source that commenced construction or 

reconstruction after July 27, 2009. All new sources are 

required to comply with the rule requirements by [INSERT 

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] 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 

must notify EPA or the delegated authority of the change. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 16 December 1, 2009 

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: 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 17 December 1, 2009 

• For the storage area, all raw materials containing 

chromium or manganese must be stored in closed 

containers. 

• For mixing operations, materials containing chromium 

or manganese must be added to the mixer in a manner to 

reduce emissions, and the mixer must be covered at all 

times when mixing is occurring, except when materials 

are being added. 

• For bulk loading processes where prepared feeds 

products containing chromium or manganese are loaded 

into trucks or railcars, you must use a device at the 

loadout end of each bulk loader to lessen fugitive 

emissions by reducing the distance between the loading 

arm and the truck or railcar. 

In addition to the above requirements that apply to

all facilities, new and existing facilities with average 

daily feed production levels exceeding 50 tpd are required 

to install and operate a cyclone to reduce emissions from 

pelleting and pellet cooling operations. The average daily 

feed production level means the average amount of prepared 

feed product produced each operating day over an annual 

period. The initial determination of the average daily 

feed production level is based on the one-year period prior 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 18 December 1, 2009 

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. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 19 December 1, 2009 

 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 20 December 1, 2009 

with average daily feed production levels exceeding 50 tpd, 

the final rule requires that the cyclone be inspected 

quarterly for corrosion, erosion, or any other damage that 

could result in air in-leakage, and that the inlet flow 

rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage be 

monitored and recorded daily to ensure that it is being 

operated in accordance with specified proper operating 

range. 

The final rule also requires that the devices required 

at the loadout end of a bulk loader to lessen fugitive 

emissions by containing the unloaded product within the 

device be inspected monthly to ensure that they are in good 

condition. 

D. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements? 

 All new and existing sources are required to comply 

with some requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart A), which are identified in Table 1 of the 

final rule. The General Provisions include specific 

requirements for notifications, recordkeeping, and 

reporting. Each facility is required to submit an Initial 

Notification and a one-time Notification of Compliance 

Status according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 in the 

General Provisions. The Initial Notification, which is 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 21 December 1, 2009 

required to be submitted by existing affected sources not 

later than [INSERT DATE 120 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 22 December 1, 2009 

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 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 by March 15 of 

the following year. 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. 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 23 December 1, 2009 

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 

 

1 We denied the requests for extension by letter, copies of which are in 

the docket. These letters explain the reasons for the denial. These 

reasons are also provided in section V.A. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 24 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 25 December 1, 2009 

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 strongly disagrees with the commenters’ 

assertion that EPA did not provide ample due process in 

developing the rule. Moreover, in developing the proposed 

rule, we began engaging the prepared feed industry 

representatives, including the commenter, as early as the 

summer of 2007. We alerted industry of the Agency’s 

rulemaking process in a meeting on August 27, 2007. At 

that same meeting, we notified industry of our intent to 

send a survey questionnaire, soliciting information on the 

prepared feed industry, including, but not limited to 

information on emissions control approaches. 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 26 December 1, 2009 

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: 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 27 December 1, 2009 

• 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 28 December 1, 2009 

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. 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 29 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 30 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 31 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 32 December 1, 2009 

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
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 33 December 1, 2009 

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 Toxics Release Inventory (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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 34 December 1, 2009 

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 impacts 

analyses was used as the basis to identify emission points 

for regulation. Rather, this decision was 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. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 35 December 1, 2009 

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. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 36 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 37 December 1, 2009 

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 

 

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

emission reduction that MACT standards must achieve, which is known as 

the MACT floor. For new sources, the degree of emission reduction shall 

not be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in 

practice by the best controlled similar source, and for existing 

sources, the degree of emission reduction shall not be less stringent 

than the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 

percent of the existing sources for which the Administrator has 

emissions information. CAA Section 112(d)(2) directs EPA to consider 

whether more stringent emission reductions (so called beyond-the-floor 

limits) are technologically achievable considering, among other things, 

the cost of achieving the emission reduction. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 38 December 1, 2009 

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 beyondthe-floor analysis before the Agency could issue a section 

112(d)(5) standard. Rather, Congress authorized EPA to 

issue GACT standards for area source categories listed 

under section 112(c)(3), and that is precisely what EPA has 

done in this rulemaking. 

Although EPA need not justify its exercise of 

discretion in choosing to issue a GACT standard for an area 

source listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3), EPA still must 

have a reasoned basis for the GACT determination for the 

particular area source category. The legislative history 

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

encompass: 

 

3 CAA Section 112(d)(5) also references CAA section 112(f). See CAA 

section 112(f)(5) (entitled “Area Sources” and providing that EPA is 

not required to conduct a review or promulgate standards under CAA 

section 112(f) for any area source category or subcategory listed 

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

is issued pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5)).
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 39 December 1, 2009 

“... 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 40 December 1, 2009 

that reduce HAP emissions at Prepared Feeds Manufacturing 

area source facilities. In its evaluation, EPA used 

information on pollution 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 wellcontrolled 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 41 December 1, 2009 

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: 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 42 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 43 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 44 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 45 December 1, 2009 

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 addition to the specific urban HAP needed to 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 46 December 1, 2009 

meet the 90 percent requirement in section 112(c)(3) and 

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

categories. In the chemical manufacturing area source 

rule, which establishes standards for 9 area source

categories, we regulated such HAP because the emission 

standards designed to control the urban HAP for which the 

categories were listed were equally effective at removing 

other urban and non-urban metal and organic HAP, and 

demonstrating compliance for total HAP was less burdensome 

than demonstrating compliance for speciated HAP for those 

sources required to install add-on controls. In the paint 

and allied products area source rule, we included emission 

standards for HAP beyond the urban HAP for which the 

category was listed because the emission standards designed 

to control those urban HAP would also control other urban 

and non-urban metal and organic HAP. 

In conclusion, we believe that we have appropriately 

exercised our discretion in regulating only the chromium 

and manganese emissions from the prepared feeds 

manufacturing area source category. Therefore, we did not 

make any changes in the final rule based on this comment. 

2. Housekeeping Management Practices 

Comment: One commenter claimed that the Agency’s 

proposed housekeeping practices are “overreaching,”
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 47 December 1, 2009 

“unfounded,” and “unnecessary.” The commenter believed 

that EPA had no basis for correlating housekeeping 

practices with ambient air concentrations of chromium 

compounds or manganese compounds. 

The commenter also had concerns with regard to two of 

the specific plant-wide housekeeping requirements proposed. 

The commenter argued that the requirement that dust be 

removed from walls, ledges and equipment at least once per 

month is not performance-orientated and fails to consider 

individual facility operations or existing management 

practices. The commenter also disagreed with the Agency’s 

assertion that air flow through open doors ‘stirs-up’ dust 

and causes chromium compounds and manganese compounds to be 

emitted into the atmosphere. Therefore, the commenter 

opposed the proposed requirement that affected facilities 

keep doors shut, as practicable. In addition, the 

commenter also expressed concern over the facilities 

ability to comply with this requirement as they questioned 

what would be the parameters set/used to determine that 

having a door shut is not practicable. 

The commenter noted that prepared feeds manufacturing 

facilities already comply with Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration’s (OSHA) Grain Handling Standard (29 

CFR 1910.272) and the Food and Drug Administration’s 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 48 December 1, 2009 

(FDA’s) Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs) for 

Medicated Feeds (21 CFR 225), and that they are regularly 

inspected by federal and state authorities. Because of 

this, the commenter believed that EPA’s proposed 

housekeeping practices are unnecessary. The commenter 

provided more detailed descriptions of these two programs. 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s 

(OSHA) Grain Handling Standard (29 CFR 1910.272): 

This standard requires facilities to “develop and 

implement a written housekeeping program that 

establishes the frequency and method(s) 

determined best to reduce accumulations of 

fugitive grain dust on ledges, floors, equipment 

and other exposed surfaces” throughout the entire 

facility. OSHA’s housekeeping requirements are 

performance-oriented, allowing facilities the 

flexibility to design housekeeping programs to 

achieve compliance through methods that are most 

effective for individual facilities and 

operations. 

FDA’s Current Good Manufacturing Practices 

(CGMPs) for Medicated Feeds (21 CFR 225): The 

vast majority of prepared feed manufacturers are 

mandated to comply with CGMPs that require 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 49 December 1, 2009 

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 performanceorientated. The CGMP regulations allow facilities 

to implement those housekeeping practices that 

are effective for their individual operations and 

achieve compliance with the standard. 

Another commenter recommended that instead of the 

specific requirements, facilities be required to 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 50 December 1, 2009 

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. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 51 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 52 December 1, 2009 

contain chromium compounds and manganese compounds.” (74 FR 

36985) However, we did not have information from a good 

cross section of the industry on specific practices

employed. We solicited information from one of the major 

prepared feeds manufacturers to identify some specific 

practices employed in the industry, and included them in 

the proposed rule. At proposal, we acknowledged the 

potential limitations of the examples of practices 

proposed, and specifically requested comment on these 

measures. We also requested additional general management 

practices commonly employed throughout the industry. 

The commenter expressed concerns with regard to the

proposed housekeeping practices, but they were not 

responsive to our request for additional practices used 

throughout the industry. While the commenter did not 

provide any suggestions to address their concerns (other 

than the suggestion to remove the practices entirely), we 

recognize the issues raised in the comments provided on the 

specific management practices and have considered them. 

The commenter stated that the requirement that dust be 

removed from walls, ledges and equipment at least once per 

month is not performance-orientated and fails to consider 

individual facility operations or existing management 

practices. It is clear that all prepared feeds 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 53 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 54 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 55 December 1, 2009 

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 manganesecontaining 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 56 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 57 December 1, 2009 

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. 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 58 December 1, 2009 

Comment: One commenter disagreed with EPA’s decision 

to reject 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 59 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 60 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 61 December 1, 2009 

“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. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 62 December 1, 2009 

 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 63 December 1, 2009 

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 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-HQOAR-2008-0080-0010) that responded to our survey for 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 64 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 65 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 66 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 67 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 68 December 1, 2009 

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 a 

parameter (inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, 

or fan amperage) operating range that constitutes proper 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 69 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 70 December 1, 2009 

how many facilities currently use drop filter socks. The 

commenter’s survey results were as follows: 

1.The average number of loading-discharge points is 14.3 

per facility 

2.Only 53 percent of the responding industry facilities 

currently have drop filter socks installed at 

discharge points where prepared feed products are 

loaded into trucks or railcars. 

3.The estimated average cost to install each drop filter 

sock is $295. 

4.The estimated average annual cost to maintain each 

drop filter sock is $215. 

The commenter indicated that, based on their survey results 

and the assumption that there would be approximately 6,300 

affected facilities, the cost to install drop filter socks 

at loading discharge points would be $12.5 million for the 

entire industry, with an annual cost of $9.1 million per 

year. The commenter notes the stark contrast in these 

estimates and EPA’s claim that the proposed requirement to 

install drop filter socks would not create additional 

associated costs for facilities. 

Three of the commenters point out other alternative

methods that are equally effective in reducing emissions 

and should be allowed. One commenter explained that many 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 71 December 1, 2009 

facilities have discharge-loading points that already are 

designed to limit the distance between the feed-discharge 

point and the conveyance, thereby minimizing potential dust 

emissions. All three of these commenters note that many 

load-out operations are conducted in enclosed areas, which 

minimizes emissions and eliminates the need for drop filter 

socks. One of the commenters asked that, if the 

requirements did not apply to truck load-outs that occur 

inside a building, EPA should clarify this in the final 

rule. 

Response: At proposal, we determined that filter drop 

socks (or drop filter socks, as we inadvertently used the 

terms interchangeably) represented GACT for bulk loading. 

As evident in the definition of “filter drop sock,” we 

intended that this term represent any “device at the 

loadout end of a bulk loader that lessens fugitive 

emissions by containing the unloaded product within the 

device thus preventing windblown and drop caused fugitive 

emissions.” We are confident in our assumption that every 

prepared feeds manufacturing facility uses some device that 

meets the proposed broad definition of filter drop sock. 

However, these comments make it apparent that the industry 

recognizes one specific technology as filter drop socks, or 

drop socks, and that it would not be accurate to assume 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 72 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 73 December 1, 2009 

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 Fed. Reg. 36982 (quoting S. REP. NO. 101-228, 

at 171-72).” 

Response: We disagree with the commenter, as we 

believe that cost effectiveness is an appropriate 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 74 December 1, 2009 

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. 

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, 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 75 December 1, 2009 

accurately measuring the pressure drop is problematic. The 

commenters stated that moisture and particulates in the 

duct (especially those “upstream” of the collectors) will 

constantly compromise the accuracy of the static pressure 

indicating equipment. Secondly, the commenters state that 

the collectors are quite inaccessible and would require 

remote readouts, which add to the cost and maintenance of 

this equipment. One commenter believed the best way to 

ensure the proper functioning of their collectors is to 

simply monitor the amp-load of the fan. The commenter 

states that if the amp-load on the fan motor stays within 

the proper range then the system is functioning properly. 

The commenter also stated that, in their operation, the 

cyclones are located between the cooler and the fan and the 

duct work is fully contained and sealed. According to the 

commenter, consequently, all the air that is discharged 

from the fan has passed through the collectors. The 

commenter stated that, additionally, the fans on their 

cooler air systems are electrically interlocked with the 

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

operate unless the fan is operating); consequently, if the 

pelleting system is operating, the fan will be operating 

and the continuous monitoring of the fan amps will ensure 

the collectors are operating in the proper range. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 76 December 1, 2009 

One of these commenters believed that the cost to 

industry to install pressure-drop gauges and to monitor 

cyclone pressure drop would be extremely high. According 

to the commenter, given the limited time provided by EPA to 

respond to this proposed requirement, they were unable to 

receive actual price quotes from vendors on the cost to 

install a pressure-drop gauge on a cyclone at various types 

of facilities. The commenter anticipated that such prices 

could vary depending upon a facility’s equipment and 

physical layout. However, according to the commenter, 

based upon best estimates from vendors, they believed that 

an average conservative cost to install a pressure-drop 

gauge is $1,500 to $2,000 per cyclone. This commenter 

suggested that the rule be revised to include alternative 

management practices and equipment controls as follows: 

1. Pellet cooling cyclones are to be operated in 

accordance with the parameters authorized by airoperating permits issued by appropriate legal 

authorities. 

2. Pellet cooling cyclones are to be maintained and

operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s 

recommendations. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 77 December 1, 2009 

3. Once per day, affected facilities are to perform a 

visual inspection of the operating cyclone and the 

discharge air stream to observe emissions. 

4. Should an affected facility observe an emission 

discharge that is not in accordance with the 

parameters authorized within its air-operating permit, 

corrective actions are to be taken immediately to 

correct the discharge and bring it into compliance 

with its air-operating permit. The details of such 

occurrences, if any, are to be recorded in the 

facility’s maintenance records as required by rule’s 

recordkeeping and notification requirements. 

 Response: We believe that it is necessary to have a 

reasonably frequent indication that the cyclones are 

operating properly. Cyclones are relatively simple devices 

and generally have no moving parts. A cyclone uses an 

induced draft fan to move the gas stream through the 

device. These fans are sized to provide the maximum inlet 

velocity possible for high separation without excessive 

turbulence. The primary indicators of the performance of 

cyclones are the outlet opacity and inlet velocity. 

 The commenter suggested the use of outlet opacity to 

monitor performance; however, monitoring outlet opacity 

would require that trained off-site contractors be used, or 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 78 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 79 December 1, 2009 

specifications. The commenter did not provide any 

information to support their estimated costs of monitoring 

equipment. 

 One of the commenters suggested that many of the 

compliance provisions be deferred to existing permit 

requirements. 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 80 December 1, 2009 

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 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 81 December 1, 2009 

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? 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 82 December 1, 2009 

 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 83 December 1, 2009 

any materials containing chromium or manganese compounds 

are not subject to the rule. The commenter interpreted 

this to mean that facilities that do not use chromium- or 

manganese-containing materials would be excluded from all 

aspects of the NESHAP, including the requirement to submit 

an Initial Notification. However, the commenter noted 

that, during the August 4, 2009 webinar (Docket Item No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080-44), it was suggested that these 

facilities would be required to submit an initial 

notification. The commenter indicated that it seems 

unnecessary to require submittal of initial notification 

from facilities that do not use chromium or manganese 

compounds, and requested that EPA clarify whether this 

report is required of these facilities. 

Response: The commenter’s interpretation is correct. 

Facilities that do not add any materials containing

chromium or manganese to any product manufactured at the 

facility are not subject to the rule, including the

requirement to submit an initial notification. 

Comment: One commenter recommended that the proposed 

requirement to submit an annual compliance certification 

report be omitted from the final rule. The commenter said 

that annual reporting is burdensome and difficult for small 

businesses to do year after year. The commenter believes 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 84 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 85 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 86 December 1, 2009 

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 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 87 December 1, 2009 

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” are 

the listed HAP. We typically use the “compound” 

terminology to remain consistent with the CAA. Therefore, 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 88 December 1, 2009 

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: 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 89 December 1, 2009 

 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 90 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 91 December 1, 2009 

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 data bases (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 that the number of facilities may be 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 92 December 1, 2009 

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 website 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 93 December 1, 2009 

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, 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 94 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 95 December 1, 2009 

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 

were 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 96 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 97 December 1, 2009 

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 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 98 December 1, 2009 

production rates of 50 tpd or less than originally 

estimated). Therefore, this new information was used, 

along with correlation between production and revenues 

provided by a commenter, to reassess this profile. The 

revised analyses assume that 29 percent of the facilities 

in the industry have average daily feed production levels 

of 50 tpd or less. 

 Number of Facilities Emitting Chromium. In the 

proposal analysis, it was assumed that every facility in 

the industry added chromium-containing nutrients to their 

products. However, in response to follow-up questions 

asked by EPA on their public comments, the industry trade 

organizations stated that: “The use of chromium compounds 

among feed manufacturers is not as prevalent as the use of 

manganese compounds. Until a recent FDA-approval for use in 

dairy feeds earlier this year, chromium compounds had been 

approved for use only in swine feeds. Only about 2 to 3 

percent of feed mills in the U.S. use a chromium compound, 

and only two compounds, chromium proprionate and chromium 

tripicolinate, are approved by FDA for use in swine feed.” 

Based on this information, the revised impacts analysis 

assumes that only 3 percent of the prepared feed 

manufacturing facilities in the United States use and emit 

chromium. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 99 December 1, 2009 

 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
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 100 December 1, 2009 

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. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 101 December 1, 2009 

 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 102 December 1, 2009 

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. section 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 103 December 1, 2009 

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

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, 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 104 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 105 December 1, 2009 

burdensome” and developing the four-factor balancing test 

in the Exemption Rule, EPA applied the test to certain area 

source categories. 

The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption 

Rule for determining whether title V is unnecessarily 

burdensome on a particular area source category include: 

(1) whether title V would result in significant 

improvements to the compliance requirements, including 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed 

for an area source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether 

title V permitting would impose significant burdens on the 

area source category and whether the burdens would be 

aggravated by any difficulty the sources may have in 

obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 FR 

75324); (3) whether the costs of title V permitting for the 

area source category would be justified, taking into 

consideration any potential gains in compliance likely to 

occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); and (4) whether there 

are implementation and enforcement programs in place that 

are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP for the 

area source category, without relying on title V permits 

(70 FR 75326).4 

 

4 In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining 

whether compliance with title V requirements would be 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 106 December 1, 2009 

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 

 

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. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 107 December 1, 2009 

Exemption Rule in interpreting the term “unnecessarily 

burdensome” in CAA section 502, but rather a new test that 

the commenter maintains EPA “must” meet in determining what 

is “unnecessarily burdensome” under CAA section 502. EPA 

did not re-open its interpretation of the term 

“unnecessarily burdensome” in CAA section 502 in the July 

27, 2009 proposed rule for the category at issue in this 

rule. Rather, we applied the four-factor balancing test 

articulated in the Exemption Rule to the source category 

for which we proposed title V exemption. Had we sought to 

re-open our interpretation of the term “unnecessarily 

burdensome” in CAA section 502 and modify it from what was 

articulated in the Exemption Rule, we would have stated so 

in the July 27, 2009 proposed rule and solicited comments 

on a revised interpretation, which we did not do. 

Accordingly, we reject the commenter’s attempt to create a 

new test for determining what constitutes “unnecessarily 

burdensome” under CAA section 502, as that issue falls 

outside the purview of this rulemaking.5 

 

5 If the commenter objected to our interpretation of the term 

“unnecessarily burdensome” in the Exemption Rule, it should have 

commented on, and challenged, that rule. Any challenge to the 

Exemption Rule is now time barred by CAA section 307(b). Although 

we received comments on the title V Exemption Rule during the 

rulemaking process, no one sought judicial review of that rule.
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 108 December 1, 2009 

Furthermore, we believe that the commenter’s position 

that “EPA must show . . . that the ’burden’ of compliance 

is unnecessary” is unreasonable and contrary to 

Congressional intent concerning the applicability of title 

V to area sources. Congress intended to treat area sources 

differently under title V, as it expressly authorized the 

EPA Administrator to exempt such sources from the 

requirements of title V at her discretion. There are 

several instances throughout the CAA where Congress chose 

to treat major sources differently than non-major sources, 

as it did in CAA section 502. Moreover, although the 

commenter espouses a new interpretation of the term

‘unnecessarily burdensome’ in CAA section 502 and attempts 

to create a new test for determining whether the 

requirements of title V are ’unnecessarily burdensome’ for 

an area source category, the commenter does not explain why 

EPA’s interpretation of the term ‘unnecessarily burdensome’ 

is arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance 

with law. We maintain that our interpretation of the term 

‘unnecessarily burdensome’ in section 502, as set forth in 

the Exemption Rule, is reasonable. 

Comment: One commenter stated that exempting a source 

category from title V permitting requirements deprives both 

the public generally and individual members of the public 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 109 December 1, 2009 

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 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 110 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 111 December 1, 2009 

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. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 112 December 1, 2009 

In applying the fourth factor here, EPA determined 

that there are adequate enforcement programs in place to 

assure compliance with the CAA. As stated in the proposal, 

we believe that state-delegated programs are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the NESHAP and that States must have 

adequate programs to enforce section 112 requirements and 

provide assurances that they will enforce the NESHAP before 

EPA will delegate the program. In addition, EPA retains 

authority to enforce this NESHAP under the CAA. See 74 FR 

36988. The commenter does not challenge the conclusion 

that there are adequate state and federal programs in place 

to ensure compliance with and enforcement of the NESHAP. 

Instead, the commenter provides an unsubstantiated 

assertion that information about compliance by the area 

sources with this NESHAP will not be as accessible to the 

public as information provided to a state pursuant to title 

V. The commenter does not, however, provide any information 

that states will treat information submitted under these 

NESHAP differently than information submitted pursuant to a 

title V permit. 

Even accepting the commenter’s assertions that it is 

more difficult for citizens to enforce the NESHAP absent a 

title V permit, which we dispute, in evaluating the fourth 

factor in EPA’s balancing test, EPA concluded that there 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 113 December 1, 2009 

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 Fed. Reg. 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 114 December 1, 2009 

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 compliance with 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 115 December 1, 2009 

the proposed rule.’ See Fed Red. 74 At 36987.” In the 

proposal, we stated: 

The proposed rule requires direct monitoring of 

control device parameters, recordkeeping that also may 

serve as monitoring, and deviation and other annual

reporting to assure compliance with the 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 116 December 1, 2009 

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 70 FR 75326. 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 117 December 1, 2009 

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. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 118 December 1, 2009 

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 70 FR 

75324. 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. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 119 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 120 December 1, 2009 

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 fourfactor 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. 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 121 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 122 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 123 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 124 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 125 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 126 December 1, 2009 

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 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 127 December 1, 2009 

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 Fed. Reg.36988.

Nonetheless, according to the commenter, EPA does not make 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 128 December 1, 2009 

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 Fed. Reg. 36988-89. The commenter continued by 

stating that EPA relied entirely on the conclusory 

arguments advanced elsewhere in its proposal that 

compliance with title V would not yield additional 

compliance with the underlying NESHAP. The 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
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 129 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 130 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 131 December 1, 2009 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 132 December 1, 2009 

shipments for the industry as a whole. As a result, this 

action is not expected to have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities or the economy as a 

whole, regardless of whether or not the firms in 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 2348.01. 

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this 

final rule are based on the requirements in EPA's NESHAP 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 133 December 1, 2009 

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
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 134 December 1, 2009 

 The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an 

agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute 

unless the agency certifies that the rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

 For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule 

on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business that meets the Small Business Administration size 

standards for small businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) 

a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district, or special district 

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

organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 

field. 

 After considering the economic impacts of this rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. This rule is estimated to impact a total 

of almost 1,800 area source prepared feeds manufacturing 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 135 December 1, 2009 

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-tosales 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 136 December 1, 2009 

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
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 137 December 1, 2009 

 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. 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 138 December 1, 2009 

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 No. 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. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 139 December 1, 2009 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome 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, 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 140 December 1, 2009 

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 [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 141 December 1, 2009 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Area Source Standards for Prepared Feeds Manufacturing 

Page 141 of 166 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, 

Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

________________________ 

Dated: 

________________________ 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 142 December 1, 2009 

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter 

I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 63—-[AMENDED] 

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

follows: 

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

Subpart A—[AMENDED] 

2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart DDDDDDD to read as 

follows: 

Subpart DDDDDDD—National Emission Standards for 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? 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 143 December 1, 2009 

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. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 144 December 1, 2009 

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 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 145 December 1, 2009 

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 [INSERT DATE TWO YEARS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 146 December 1, 2009 

 (b) If you own or operate a new affected source, you 

must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of 

this subpart by [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], or upon startup of your affected source,

whichever is later. 

 (c) If you own or operate a facility that becomes an 

affected source in accordance with § 63.11619(b)(3) 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. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 147 December 1, 2009 

(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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 148 December 1, 2009 

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. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 149 December 1, 2009 

 (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 (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 

(f)(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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 150 December 1, 2009 

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 

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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 151 December 1, 2009 

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. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 152 December 1, 2009 

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 

existing affected source you must submit an Initial

Notification no later than [INSERT DATE 120 DAYS AFTER THE 

DATE OF PUBLICATION in THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 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; 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 153 December 1, 2009 

(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 [INSERT DATE 

2 YEARS AND 120 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. If you are the owner or operator of a 

new affected source, you must submit a Notification of 

Compliance Status within 120 days of initial startup, or by 

[INSERT DATE 120 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is later. If you own or 

operate an affected source that becomes an affected source 

in accordance with §63.11619(b)(3) after the 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 154 December 1, 2009 

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. You must submit the report 

by March 15 if you had any instance described by paragraph 

(b)(3) through (6) of this section. 

(1) Your company’s name and address. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 155 December 1, 2009 

(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 

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. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 156 December 1, 2009 

(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; 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 157 December 1, 2009 

(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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 158 December 1, 2009 

greater by certification by a professional engineer or 

responsible official 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. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 159 December 1, 2009 

(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. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 160 December 1, 2009 

(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 [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 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 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 161 December 1, 2009 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 162 December 1, 2009 

(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, 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 163 December 1, 2009 

and premixes; earthworm food and bedding; animal feed 

concentrates; animal feed premixes; animal feed 

supplements; prepared animal feeds; specialty animal (e.g., 

guinea pig, mice, mink) feeds; fish food for feeding fish; 

custom ground grains for animal feed; cubed hay; kelp meal 

and pellets animal feed; laboratory animal feed; livestock 

feeds, supplements, concentrates and premixes; alfalfa 

meal; bone meal prepared as feed for animals and fowls; 

livestock micro and macro premixes; mineral feed 

supplements; animal mineral supplements; pet food; poultry 

feeds, supplements, and concentrates; rabbit food; shell 

crushed and ground animal feed; swine feed; swine feed 

supplements, concentrates, and premixes; and prepared 

turkey feeds. Feed products produced for dogs and cats are 

not considered animal feed for the purposes of this

subpart. 

Average daily feed production level means the average 

amount of animal feed products produced each day over an 

annual period. The initial determination of the average 

daily feed production level is based on the one-year period 

prior to the compliance date for existing sources, or the 

design rate for new sources. The subsequent average daily 

feed production levels are determined annually and are 

based on the amount of animal feed products produced in a 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 164 December 1, 2009 

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. 

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. 

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.

§ 63.11628—63.11638 [Reserved 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 165 December 1, 2009 

Tables to Subpart DDDDDDD of Part 63 

Table 1 to Subpart DDDDDDD of Part 63—Applicability of 

General Provisions to Prepared Feeds Manufacturing Area 

Sources 

As required in § 63.11619, you must meet each 

requirement in the following table that applies to you. 

Draft Part 63 General Provisions to be incorporated

for Prepared Feeds: 

Citation Subject Applies to 

Subpart 

DDDDDDD? 

63.1 Applicability. Yes. 

63.2 Definitions. Yes. 

63.3 Units and 

Abbreviations. 

Yes. 

63.4 Prohibited Activities 

and Circumvention. 

Yes. 

63.5 Preconstruction Review 

and Notification 

Requirements. 

No. 

63.6(a),(b)(1)-(b)(5), 

(b)(7), (c), (f)(2)-

(3), (g), (i), and (j)

Compliance with 

Standards and 

Maintenance 

Requirements 

Yes. 

63.6(e)(1), (e)(3), 

(f)(1), and (h) 

Startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction 

requirements and 

opacity/visible 

emission standards. 

No. 

Standards 

apply at 

all times, 

including 

during 

startup, 

shutdown, 

and 

malfunction 

events. 

63.7 Performance Testing 

Requirements 

Yes. 

63.8 Monitoring Requirements Yes. 

63.9(a), (b), (c), 

(d), (h), (i), and (j)

Notification 

Requirements. 

Yes. 
DRAFT – 

DO NOTE CITE OR QUOTE 166 December 1, 2009 

63.9(e), (f), (g) No 

63.10(a),(b)(1), 

(b)(2)(i)-(iii), 

(b)(2)(vi)-(xiv), (c), 

(d)(1), (e), and (f) 

Recordkeeping and 

Reporting Requirements 

Yes. 

63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v), 

(b)(3), and (d)(2)–(5)

Recordkeeping and 

Reporting Requirements 

No. 

63.11 Control Device 

Requirements 

No. 

63.12 State Authorities and 

Delegations. 

Yes. 

63.13 Addresses. Yes. 

63.14 Incorporations by 

Reference. 

Yes. 

63.15 Availability of 

Information and 

Confidentiality. 

Yes. 

63.16 Performance Track 

Provisions. 

Yes. 

63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)-

(9), (b)(2), (c)(3)-

(4), (d), 63.6(b)(6), 

(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), 

(e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), 

(h)(3), (h)(5)(iv), 

63.8(a)(3), 

63.9(b)(3), (h)(4), 

63.10(c)(2)-(4), 

(c)(9) 

Reserved No.