36980 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental Protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Volatile organic compounds, Ozone, 

Sulfur oxides, Nitrogen dioxide. 

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

Dated: July 7, 2009. 

Beverly H. Banister, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. E9–17823 Filed 7–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0353; FRL–8935–3] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, California Air 

Resources Board Consumer Products 

Regulations; Extension of Comment 

Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing an 

extension of the public comment period 

for the proposed rule entitled 

‘‘Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, California Air 

Resources Board Consumer Products 

Regulations.’’ The proposed rule was 

initially published in the Federal 

Register on June 26, 2009. Written 

comments on the proposed rule were to 

be submitted to EPA on or before July 

27, 2009 (30-day comment period). The 

EPA is extending the public comment 

period until August 27, 2009. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published June 26, 2009 

(74 FR 30481), is extended. Comments 

must be received on or before August 

27, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2009–0353, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4122, tong.stanley@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

proposed rule was signed by the Acting 

Regional Administrator on June 17, 

2009 and published in the Federal 

Register on June 26, 2009 (74 FR 30481). 

The proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. EPA has 

received a request for an additional 30 

days to comment on the proposed rule 

and is granting that request. Therefore, 

EPA is extending the comment period 

until August 27, 2009. 

Dated: July 17, 2009. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E9–17832 Filed 7–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0080; FRL–8935–1] 

RIN 2060–AO98 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area 

Sources: Prepared Feeds 

Manufacturing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing national 

emissions standards for control of 

hazardous air pollutants from prepared 

feeds manufacturing facilities. The 

proposed emissions standards for new 

and existing sources are based on EPA’s 

proposed determination as to what 

constitutes the generally available 

control technology or management 

practices for the area source category. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 26, 2009, unless a 

public hearing is requested by August 6, 

2009. If a hearing is requested on the 

proposed rules, written comments must 

be received by September 10, 2009. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

comments on the information collection 

provisions must be received by Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) on or 

before August 26, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0080, may be submitted by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web Site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. Follow 

the instructions for submitting 

comments on the EPA Air and Radiation 

Docket Web Site. 

• E-mail: Comments may be sent by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to a-and-rdocket@epa.gov, include Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0080 in subject 

line of the message. 

• Fax: Fax your comments to: (202) 

566–9744, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0080. 

• Mail: Send your comments to: Air 

and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0080. Please include a total 

of two copies. In addition, please mail 

a copy of your comments on the 

information collection provisions to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36981 

Affairs, OMB, Attn: Desk Officer for 

EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 

20503. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: EPA Docket Center, 

Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number or Regulatory Information 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. All 

comments will be posted without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be confidential 

business information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the ‘‘Public Participation’’ heading 

of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Center EPA Docket Center, 

1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 

3334, Washington, DC 20460. 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: 

Outline. The information in this 

preamble is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments to EPA? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

D. When would a public hearing occur? 

II. Background Information for Proposed Area 

Source Standards 

A. What is the statutory authority and 

regulatory approach for the proposed 

standards? 

B. What source category is affected by the 

proposed standards? 

C. What are the production operations, 

emission sources, and available controls? 

III. Summary of This Proposed Rule 

A. What are the applicability provisions 

and compliance dates? 

B. What are the proposed standards? 

C. What are the compliance requirements? 

D. What are the notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements? 

IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule 

A. How did we select the affected source? 

B. How did we ensure that the listed HAP 

are addressed by this rule? 

C. How did we subcategorize the Prepared 

Feeds Manufacturing source category? 

D. How did we determine GACT? 

E. How did we select the compliance 

requirements? 

F. How did we decide to exempt this area 

source category from Title V permit 

requirements? 

V. Summary of Impacts of the Proposed 

Standards 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

The regulated categories and entities 

potentially affected by the proposed 

standards are prepared feeds 

manufacturers who add chromium 

compounds or manganese compounds 

to their product. In general, the facilities 

potentially affected by the rule are 

covered under the North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) code listed in the following 

table. 

Category NAICS code 1 Examples of regulated entities 

Industry: 

Other Animal Foods Manufacturing ..................................... 311119 Animal feeds, prepared (except dog and cat), manufacturing. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. To determine 

whether your facility would be 

regulated by this action, you should 

examine the applicability criteria in 40 

CFR 63.11619 of subpart DDDDDDD 

(NESHAP for Area Sources: Prepared 

Feeds Manufacturing). If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

either the air permit authority for the 

entity or your EPA regional 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
36982 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 

of subpart A (General Provisions). 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments to EPA? 

Do not submit information containing 

CBI to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: Roberto 

Morales, OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0080. Clearly mark the part 

or all of the information that you claim 

to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk 

or CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as 

CBI and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposed action will also be available 

on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through 

the Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN). Following signature, a copy of 

this proposed action will be posted on 

the TTN’s policy and guidance page for 

newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

the following address: http:// 

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

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

D. When would a public hearing occur? 

If anyone contacts EPA requesting to 

speak at a public hearing concerning the 

proposed rule by August 6, 2009, we 

will hold a public hearing on August 11, 

2009. Persons interested in presenting 

oral testimony at the hearing, or 

inquiring as to whether a hearing will be 

held, should contact Ms. Christine 

Adams at (919) 541–5590 at least two 

days in advance of the hearing. If a 

public hearing is held, it will be held at 

10 a.m. at the EPA’s Environmental 

Research Center Auditorium, 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Research Triangle 

Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby. 

II. Background Information for 

Proposed Area Source Standards 

A. What is the statutory authority and 

regulatory approach for the proposed 

standards? 

Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requires us to establish national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP) for both major and 

area sources of hazardous air pollutants 

(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 (tons/yr) or more of any 

single HAP or 25 tons/yr 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 (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. A primary goal of the 

Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent 

reduction in cancer incidence 

attributable to HAP emitted from 

stationary sources. 

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

elect to promulgate standards or 

requirements for area sources ‘‘which 

provide for the use of generally 

available control technologies or 

management practices (‘‘GACT’’) by 

such sources to reduce emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants.’’ Additional 

information on GACT is found in the 

Senate report on the legislation (Senate 

Report Number 101–228, December 20, 

1989), which describes GACT as: 

* * * methods, practices and techniques 

which are commercially available and 

appropriate for application by the sources in 

the category considering economic impacts 

and the technical capabilities of the firms to 

operate and maintain the emissions control 

systems. 

Consistent with the legislative history, 

we can consider costs and economic 

impacts in determining GACT, which is 

particularly important when developing 

regulations for source categories that 

may have many small businesses such 

as this one. 

Determining what constitutes GACT 

involves considering the control 

technologies and management practices 

that are generally available to the area 

sources in the source category. We also 

consider the standards applicable to 

major sources in the same industrial 

sector to determine if the control 

technologies and management practices 

are transferable and generally available 

to area sources. In appropriate 

circumstances, we may also consider 

technologies and practices at area and 

major sources in similar categories to 

determine whether such technologies 

and practices could be considered 

generally available for the area source 

category at issue. Finally, as noted 

above, in determining GACT for a 

particular area source category, we 

consider the costs and economic 

impacts of available control 

technologies and management practices 

on that category. 

We are proposing these national 

emission standards in response to a 

court-ordered deadline that requires 

EPA to issue standards for this source 

category, listed pursuant to section 

112(c)(3) and (k) by August 17, 2009 

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

D.D.C., March 2006). Other rulemakings 

will include standards for the remaining 

source categories that are due in October 

2009. 

B. What source category is affected by 

the proposed standards? 

The source category affected by the 

proposed standards is prepared feeds 

manufacturers (except for dog and cat 

food) who add chromium compounds or 

manganese compounds to their product. 

We listed the prepared feed source 

category under CAA section 112(c)(3) in 

one of a series of amendments 

(November 22, 2002, 67 FR 70427) to 

the original source category list 

included in the 1999 Strategy. The 

inclusion of this source category of the 

section 112(c)(3) area source category 

list is based on 1990 emissions data, as 

EPA used 1990 as the baseline year for 

that listing. 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. 

In preparing this proposed rule, we 

solicited information on the production 

operations, emission sources, and 

available controls using written facility 

surveys from, and operating permits for, 

prepared feed manufacturing area 

sources, as well as from reviews of 

published literature. We also held 

discussions with trade association and 

industry representatives. From this 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36983 

research we found that the prepared 

feeds manufacturing area source 

category emits the listed urban HAP 

chromium compounds and manganese 

compounds. Based on current 

information, including the 2002 Census, 

we believe that there are around 1,800 

area source prepared feed 

manufacturing facilities currently 

operating that add chromium 

compounds or manganese compounds 

to their products that would be subject 

to the proposed area source standards. 

These proposed standards do not apply 

to research and development facilities, 

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

CAA. 

C. What are the production operations, 

emission sources, and available 

controls? 

Prepared feeds manufacturers 

produce feeds for large and small 

animals, from hamsters and gerbils to 

farm animals. Over 200 ingredients may 

be used in feed production operations 

including grain and byproducts such as 

meat meal, bone meal, beet, and tomato 

pulp. Medicinals, vitamins, and 

minerals are also added in small 

portions. 

Grain is usually received at the mill 

by hopper bottom truck and/or rail cars, 

or in some cases, by barge. Most mills 

pass selected feed ingredients, primarily 

grains, through cleaning equipment 

prior to storage. Upon removal from 

storage, the grain is transferred to the 

grinding area, where selected whole 

grains, primarily corn, are ground prior 

to mixing with other feed components. 

The hammermill is the most widely 

used grinding device. The pulverized 

material is forced out of the mill 

chamber when it is ground finely 

enough to pass through the perforations 

in the mill screen. 

Mixing is the most important process 

in feed milling and is normally a batch 

process. Ingredients, including those 

containing chromium compounds and 

manganese compounds, are weighed on 

bench or hopper scales before mixing. 

Mixers may be horizontal or vertical 

type, using either screws or paddles to 

move the ingredients. 

The material leaving the mixer is 

meal, or mash, and may be marketed in 

this form. If pellets are to be made, the 

meal is conditioned with steam prior to 

being pelleted. Pelleting is a process in 

which the conditioned meal is forced 

through dies. Pellets are usually 3.2 to 

19 mm (1⁄8 to 3⁄4 in.) in diameter. After 

pelleting, pellets are dried and cooled in 

pellet coolers. If pellets are to be 

reduced in size, they are passed through 

a crumbler, or granulator. This machine 

is a roller mill with corrugated rolls. 

Crumbles must be screened to remove 

fines and oversized materials. The 

product is sent to storage bins and then 

bagged or shipped in bulk. 

In modern feed mills, transport 

equipment is often connected with 

closed spouting and turnheads, covered 

drag and screw conveyors, and tightly 

sealed transitions between adjoining 

equipment to reduce internal dust loss 

and consequent housekeeping costs. 

Some older facilities have also upgraded 

to these closed systems. 

Emission sources where chromium 

compound and manganese compound 

emissions may occur include handling 

and storage of these compounds, 

mixing, storage of the meal or mash, 

steam conditioning, pelleting and pellet 

cooling, crumbling and screening, 

bagging, and bulk shipment loading to 

trucks or rail cars. Pelleting and pellet 

cooling is the most significant source of 

emissions, estimated to emit 90 percent 

or more of the total chromium 

compound and manganese compound 

emissions. 

The chromium compounds and 

manganese compounds emitted 

comprise a small fraction of the total 

particulate matter (PM) emissions from 

prepared feed mills. Fabric filters and 

cyclones are commonly used to control 

PM, including the chromium 

compounds and manganese compounds, 

from the pelleting and pellet cooling 

process. These control devices are also 

used less frequently for other processes 

at prepared feed mill facilities. For some 

processes and areas, facilities use the 

pollution prevention technique of 

closed loop systems that return 

collected PM (including chromium 

compounds and manganese 

compounds) to the process. We believe 

that over half of the facilities have these 

closed loop systems for their mixing/ 

grinding processes and for their 

conveyers. Common management 

practices that reduce chromium 

compound and manganese compound 

emissions include continual 

housekeeping to reduce dust that might 

contain these HAP compounds by 

vacuuming or sweeping, keeping doors 

closed to prevent air flow that would 

‘‘stir-up’’ dust, preventative equipment 

maintenance, careful handling of 

chromium- and manganese-containing 

micronutrients, and the use of devices 

to reduce emissions during the loading 

of product on to trucks and railcars. 

III. Summary of This Proposed Rule 

A. What are the applicability provisions 

and compliance dates? 

The proposed subpart DDDDDDD 

standards would apply to each new or 

existing prepared feeds manufacturing 

facility that is an area source and adds 

chromium compounds or manganese 

compounds to any of their products. 

All existing area source facilities 

subject to this proposed rule would be 

required to comply with the rule 

requirements no later than two years 

after the date of publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register. Based on 

our assessment, there will be around 32 

facilities that will need to evaluate, 

purchase, and install add-on control 

equipment for their pelleting operations. 

We believe that the two-year period 

provides sufficient time for this to 

occur. In addition, since the vast 

majority of the companies in this area 

source category are small businesses 

and may not have significant experience 

complying with federal rules, we 

believe that this time period would also 

provide opportunity for all companies 

to prepare adequately. 

A new source is any affected source 

that commences construction or 

reconstruction after July 27, 2009. All 

new sources would be required to 

comply with the rule requirements by 

the date of publication of the final rule 

in the Federal Register or upon startup, 

whichever is later. 

B. What are the proposed standards? 

The proposed standards include 

management practices and equipment 

standards that will reduce emissions of 

chromium compounds and manganese 

compounds at prepared feed 

manufacturing facilities. These practices 

and standards will also result in 

reductions of PM and other metal HAP 

emissions from the affected processes at 

prepared feed manufacturing facilities. 

The proposed requirements, which 

apply to all new and existing sources, 

consist of general management practices 

that apply in all areas of the affected 

sources and requirements for specific 

processes or areas of an affected source. 

One proposed general management 

practice that would apply to all new and 

existing sources in all areas of the 

affected source is minimizing excess 

dust that could contain chromium 

compounds or manganese compounds. 

This would be achieved through 

practices including, but not limited to, 

the use of industrial vacuum systems or 

manual sweeping; monthly dust 

removal from walls, ledges, and 

equipment using low pressure air or by 

other means and then sweeping or 

vacuuming the area; and by keeping 

doors shut. The second general 

management practice is the requirement 

to maintain and operate all process 

equipment that stores, processes, or 

contains chromium compounds or 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
36984 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

manganese compounds in a manner to 

minimize dust creation. 

The proposed requirements that 

would apply to all new and existing 

sources which are specific to certain 

areas of the plant or processes are as 

follows: 

• For the storage area, all raw 

materials containing chromium 

compounds or manganese compounds 

must be stored in closed containers. 

• For mixing operations, materials 

containing chromium compounds or 

manganese compounds 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 operations, filter 

drop socks must be used when loading 

product containing chromium 

compounds or manganese compounds 

into trucks or railcars. 

In addition to the above requirements 

that apply to all facilities, new and 

existing facilities with average daily 

feed production levels exceeding 50 

tons per day would be required to 

install and operate a cyclone to reduce 

emissions from pelleting and pellet 

cooling operations. Specifically, the 

proposed rule would require that 

emissions of PM that include chromium 

compounds or manganese compounds 

would be required to be collected and 

routed to a cyclone that is designed to 

achieve at least 95 percent reduction in 

PM less than 10 microns in diameter 

(PM10) and that is operated properly 

and in accordance with the equipment 

manufacturers specifications. 

C. What are the compliance 

requirements? 

For all new and existing sources, 

compliance with the proposed 

regulation would be demonstrated 

through installation of the required 

equipment, adherence to the 

management practices, and by keeping 

the required records and submitting the 

required notifications and reports 

described below. 

To ensure that the cyclone for the 

pelleting and pellet cooling process is 

operated properly at facilities with 

average daily feed production levels 

exceeding 50 tons per day, the proposed 

rule would require that the cyclone be 

inspected quarterly for corrosion, 

erosion, or any other damage that could 

result in air in-leakage, and that the 

pressure drop be monitored and 

recorded daily to ensure that it is being 

operated in accordance with the 

equipment manufacturer’s 

specifications. 

The proposed rule would also require 

that the filter drop socks on the bulk 

loading operations 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 would 

be required to comply with some 

requirements of the General Provisions 

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

identified in Table 1 of this proposed 

rule. The General Provisions include 

specific requirements for notifications, 

recordkeeping, and reporting. Each 

facility would be 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 would be 

required to be submitted not later than 

120 days after the final rule is published 

in the Federal Register, would contain 

basic information about the facility and 

its operations. The Notification of 

Compliance Status, which would be 

required to be submitted 120 days after 

the compliance date, would contain a 

statement that the source has complied 

with all relevant standards. It would 

also be required to include the pressure 

drop range that constitutes proper 

operation of the cyclone used to reduce 

emissions from the pelleting and pellet 

cooling operations. 

The proposed rule would require that 

records be kept of all notifications. The 

proposed rule requires that records be 

kept documenting each cyclone or drop 

filter sock inspection, and each pressure 

drop monitoring event. The proposed 

rule further requires that a record be 

created monthly that certifies that all 

management practices have been 

followed. The records must also include 

the results of each inspection (including 

any actions taken in response to 

findings of the inspections), and each 

monitoring event. The proposed rule 

includes the requirement to prepare an 

annual compliance certification, which 

would need to be maintained on site. 

This report would contain a statement 

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 

pressure drop was outside of the proper 

operating range submitted in the 

Notification of Compliance Status 

report, this information would be 

required to be included in the annual 

report and the report would need to be 

submitted to the EPA Administrator or 

the designated authority by March 15 of 

the same year. All records are required 

to be maintained in a form suitable and 

readily available for expeditious review, 

and that they are kept for at least five 

years, the first two of which must be 

onsite. 

IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule 

A. How did we select the affected 

source? 

Affected source means the collection 

of equipment and processes in the 

source category or subcategory to which 

the subpart applies. The affected source 

may be the same collection of 

equipment and processes as the source 

category or it may be a subset of the 

source category. We are proposing to 

designate as the affected source in this 

area source NESHAP those prepared 

feeds manufacturing operations that 

emit chromium compounds and 

manganese compounds. Specifically, 

the proposed rule defines the affected 

source as the collection of all equipment 

and activities necessary to perform 

prepared feeds manufacturing 

operations from the point in the process 

where chromium compounds or 

manganese compounds are added to the 

point where the finished prepared feed 

product leaves the facility. This 

includes, but is not limited to, areas 

where materials containing chromium 

compounds and manganese compounds 

are stored and areas where the 

chromium compounds and manganese 

compounds are temporarily stored prior 

to addition to the feed at the mixer, as 

well as 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. 

B. How did we ensure that the listed 

HAP are addressed by this rule? 

In selecting the proposed emission 

standards, we are using PM as a 

surrogate for chromium compounds and 

manganese compounds. A sufficient 

correlation exists between PM and 

chromium compounds and manganese 

compounds to rely on PM as a surrogate 

for these HAP and for their control. 

When released, chromium compounds 

and manganese compounds are in 

particle form and behave as PM. The 

control technologies used for the control 

of PM emissions achieve comparable 

levels of performance on chromium 

compounds and manganese compounds 

emissions. Therefore, standards 

requiring good control of PM also 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36985 

1Memorandum. Jones, N. and Norwood, P., 

EC/R Incorporated, to King, J., EPA/OAQPS/OID. 

Baseline Emissions for the Prepared Feeds 

Manufacturing Area Source Category. February 27, 

2009. 

2Memorandum. Jones, N. and Norwood, P., 

EC/R Incorporated, to King, J., EPA/OAQPS/OID. 

Summary of Information Obtained from Industry 

Survey for the Prepared Feeds Manufacturing Area 

Source Category. February 27, 2009. 

achieve good control of chromium 

compounds and manganese compounds. 

Furthermore, establishing chromium 

compound and manganese compound 

standards would impose costly and 

significantly more complex compliance 

and monitoring requirements and 

achieve little, if any, HAP emissions 

reductions beyond what would be 

achieved using an approach based on 

total PM control. Therefore, we decided 

to propose standards for prepared feeds 

manufacturing based on control of PM 

as a surrogate pollutant for chromium 

compounds and manganese compounds. 

C. How did we subcategorize the 

Prepared Feeds Manufacturing source 

category? 

As part of the GACT analysis, we 

considered whether there were 

differences in processes, sizes, or other 

factors affecting emissions and control 

technologies that would warrant 

subcategorization of the Prepared feeds 

manufacturing area source category. 

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’’. In our review of 

available data, we observed differences 

between prepared feeds manufacturing 

facilities based on production levels. We 

estimate that the emissions for a typical 

small facility are only around 10 percent 

of the level of emissions at a typical 

larger facility.1 There are also 

considerable differences in the emission 

stream flow rates at larger facilities, as 

they are, on average, around five times 

greater than the flow rates at the smaller 

facilities.2 Based on these differences, 

we determined that subcategorization of 

the Prepared Feeds Manufacturing 

source category was justified. 

Consequently, we are proposing to 

subcategorize the Prepared Feeds 

Manufacturing source category into 

‘‘small’’ and ‘‘large’’ facilities. The 

proposed threshold that we selected to 

distinguish between large and small 

facilities is a prepared feeds 

manufacturing rate of 50 tons per day, 

which as the record demonstrates, 

represents the characteristics mentioned 

above. We are specifically requesting 

comment on whether this production 

rate is the most appropriate level to 

define the differences between the small 

and large prepared feeds manufacturing 

subcategories. 

D. How did we determine GACT? 

As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), 

we are proposing standards representing 

GACT for the prepared feeds 

manufacturing source HAP emissions. 

As noted in section II.A of this 

preamble, the statute allows the Agency 

to establish standards for area sources 

listed pursuant to section 112(c) based 

on GACT. The statute does not set any 

condition precedent for issuing 

standards under section 112(d)(5) other 

than that the area source category or 

subcategory at issue must be one that 

EPA listed pursuant to section 112(c), 

which is the case here. 

As noted above, we solicited 

information on the available controls 

and management practices for this area 

source category using written facility 

surveys, reviews of published literature, 

and reviews of operating permits. We 

also held discussions with trade 

association and industry 

representatives. Our determination of 

GACT is based on this information. We 

also considered costs and economic 

impacts in determining GACT. 

We identified two general 

management practices that reduce 

chromium compound and manganese 

compound emissions for all processes 

and in all areas of small and large 

prepared feed manufacturing facilities. 

The first were continual housekeeping 

practices to reduce dust that can contain 

chromium compounds and manganese 

compounds. Examples of these 

housekeeping practices include 

removing dust with industrial vacuum 

systems or by manual sweeping; 

periodically removing dust from walls, 

ledges, and equipment using low 

pressure air or by other means and then 

sweeping or vacuuming the area; and 

keeping doors closed to avoid spreading 

dust throughout the facility. The second 

management practice identified was the 

proper maintenance and operation of all 

process equipment that stores, 

processes, or contains chromium 

compounds or manganese compounds 

to minimize dust creation. 

We believe that every prepared feed 

facility already employs these practices. 

Therefore, the proposed rule includes 

these general practices as GACT for 

small and large prepared feeds 

manufacturing facilities. We are, 

however, requesting comment on the 

particular requirements listed above 

under the first management practice 

(vacuuming/sweeping, removing dust 

from walls, etc., and keeping doors 

closed). Specifically, we would like to 

know if there are additional general 

management practices that are 

commonly used throughout prepared 

feeds manufacturing facilities that 

should be included in this list of 

requirements. We are also asking for 

specific maintenance activities and 

operational practices that would be 

appropriate to include that would 

strengthen the second general 

management practice. 

In addition, we evaluated other 

process-specific or area-specific 

measures and controls in our analysis. 

The following discussion is organized 

according to these processes/areas. 

Storage Areas. For those facilities that 

provided information on the area where 

micronutrients containing chromium 

compounds and manganese compounds 

are stored, 100 percent of both large and 

small prepared feeds manufacturing 

facilities reported that these materials 

were stored in closed containers. There 

were no other measures or controls 

reported. Therefore, in addition to the 

general requirements to minimize dust 

and maintain equipment throughout the 

facility, we determined that GACT for 

the storage areas at small and large 

facilities included the requirement that 

any raw materials containing chromium 

compounds or manganese compounds 

be stored in closed containers. 

Mixing Processes. Facilities routinely 

are careful to minimize losses during 

the mixing process of the expensive 

micronutrients that contain chromium 

compounds and manganese compounds. 

This also minimizes chromium 

compound and manganese compound 

emissions. The measures employed 

include adding materials carefully and 

keeping the mixer covered after they are 

added when mixing is occurring. We 

believe that every prepared feed facility 

employs these practices and that they 

represent GACT. 

In addition, control devices to reduce 

emissions from mixing operations were 

reported in a few instances (24 percent 

of facilities surveyed). We estimated the 

cost effectiveness of requiring the 

uncontrolled mixing operations to 

install add-on controls at small prepared 

feeds manufacturing facilities to be 

around $127 million per ton of 

chromium compound and manganese 

compound emission reduction and 

$380,000 and $1.6 million per ton of PM 

and PM2.5, respectively. For the larger 

facilities, we estimated the cost 

effectiveness to be around $18 million 

per ton of chromium and manganese 

compound emission reduction, $55,000 

per ton of PM reduction, and $240,000 

per ton of PM2.5 reduction. Because only 

a minority of facilities have installed 

these control devices and because the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
36986 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

cost effectiveness is higher than we 

generally consider reasonable, we are 

not proposing that add-on control 

represents GACT for mixing operations. 

Therefore, in addition to the general 

requirements to minimize dust and 

maintain equipment throughout the 

facility, we are proposing that GACT for 

the mixing processes at small and large 

prepared feeds manufacturing facilities 

include the requirements to (1) add 

materials containing chromium 

compounds or manganese compounds 

to the mixer in a manner that minimizes 

emissions, and (2) cover the mixer at all 

times when materials containing 

chromium compounds or manganese 

compounds are being used. We are 

asking for comment on specific 

measures that would be appropriate to 

include to strengthen the proposed 

requirement to minimize emissions 

when materials are being added to the 

mixer. 

Pelleting and pellet cooling. For 

pelleting and pellet cooling processes, 

add-on controls were reported for 

almost 98 percent of the larger facilities, 

but only around 20 percent of the 

smaller facilities For the larger facilities, 

we estimated that requiring the 

additional 2 percent of the larger 

facilities to install cyclones would cost 

around $300,000 per ton of chromium 

compound and manganese compound 

reduction, $1,000 per ton of PM 

emission reduction, and $4,000 per ton 

of PM2.5 reduction. We concluded that 

these costs were reasonable in 

consideration of the emission 

reductions achieved, and determined 

that the use of cyclones to reduce 

emissions from pelleting cooling 

operations was GACT for large prepared 

feeds manufacturing facilities. 

Therefore, in addition to the general 

requirements to minimize dust and 

maintain equipment throughout the 

facility, we are proposing that GACT for 

large prepared feeds manufacturing 

facilities include the requirements that 

all chromium compound and 

manganese compound emissions from 

pelleting and pellet cooling operations 

must be captured and routed to a 

cyclone. The information provided via 

the industry survey did not include 

specific details about the performance of 

these cyclones, but we believe that 

properly designed cyclones should be 

able to achieve 95 percent reduction in 

PM emissions. This belief is based on 

follow-up of the survey responses and 

information obtained from cyclone 

vendors. Therefore, we are proposing 

that the cyclones be designed to achieve 

at least 95 percent reduction in PM10. 

We are specifically requesting comment 

on this 95 percent efficiency 

requirement. In addition, we are 

requesting comment on whether control 

devices other than cyclones are used to 

reduce PM emissions from pelleting and 

pellet cooling. If other devices are used, 

we would request information that 

demonstrates that these devices are at 

least equivalent to the required 

cyclones, and the monitoring techniques 

utilized to ensure that they are operating 

properly. 

We also evaluated the impacts of 

requiring the installation of cyclones at 

all facilities in the small prepared feeds 

manufacturing subcategory. As noted 

above, the available information 

suggests that around 80 percent of these 

smaller facilities do not control PM 

emissions from their pelleting and pellet 

cooling process. We estimated the cost 

effectiveness to 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. We 

estimated that the annual cost of 

installing and operating a cyclone at one 

of these small facilities would be around 

$58,000 per year. Our economic impacts 

assessment indicates that annual costs 

of this magnitude could represent over 

5 percent of the total annual sales for a 

smaller prepared feeds manufacturing 

facility. We concluded that the adverse 

economic impacts do not justify a 

determination requiring cyclones for the 

small prepared feeds manufacturing 

subcategory. Therefore, we are 

proposing that GACT for small prepared 

feeds manufacturing facilities as only 

the general management practices to 

minimize dust and maintain equipment. 

Bagging. The information provided by 

facilities also indicated that add-on 

controls, primarily fabric filters, are 

used to reduce emissions from bagging 

operations at prepared feeds 

manufacturing facilities. The available 

information suggests that around 1⁄3 of 

the smaller facilities and over 90 

percent of the larger facilities control 

the emissions from the bagging 

processes. We evaluated the impacts of 

the installation and operation of fabric 

filters at the remaining facilities, and 

estimated that, for the smaller facilities, 

the total capital costs would be over $7 

million and the total annual costs would 

be over $16 million per year. Since 

bagging is a relatively small source of 

emissions, the cost effectiveness for 

these controls would be around $255 

million per ton of chromium and 

manganese compound reduction, over 

$750,000 per ton of PM emission 

reduction, and $3.3 million per ton of 

PM2.5 reduction. We concluded that 

these cost effectiveness values were too 

high to be considered GACT. Therefore, 

for bagging operations at smaller 

prepared feeds manufacturing facilities, 

the proposed rule would require that the 

general requirements to minimize dust 

and maintain equipment throughout the 

facility be followed, but would not 

require the installation and operation of 

add-on control. 

For the larger facilities, we estimated 

that the total capital costs would be over 

$10 million and the total annual costs 

would be over $13 million per year. The 

cost effectiveness for these controls at 

these larger facilities would be around 

$37 million per ton of chromium and 

manganese compound reduction, over 

$100,000 per ton of PM emission 

reduction, and around $500,000 per ton 

of PM2.5 reduction. We concluded that, 

although a significant portion of the 

existing large facilities control 

emissions from bagging, these cost 

effectiveness values were too high to be 

considered GACT. Therefore, for 

bagging operations at larger prepared 

feeds manufacturing facilities, the 

proposed rule would also only require 

that the general requirements to 

minimize dust and maintain equipment 

throughout the facility be followed. 

Bulk loading. Based on the industry 

surveys, we believe that every facility 

uses drop filter socks to reduce dust and 

the loss of product during the loading of 

railcars and trucks. We determined that 

this equipment represents GACT for 

bulk loading operations at both small 

and large facilities. Therefore, in 

addition to the general requirements to 

minimize dust and maintain equipment 

throughout the facility, we are 

proposing that GACT for bulk loading 

include the requirement to install drop 

filter socks for small and large prepared 

feeds manufacturing facilities. 

E. How did we select the compliance 

requirements? 

In order to ensure that the cyclones on 

the pelleting and pellet cooling 

operations remain effective in reducing 

chromium compounds and manganese 

compounds, we are proposing that these 

cyclones be operated and maintained in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

specifications. We are also proposing 

that these cyclones be inspected 

monthly and that the pressure drop be 

monitored daily and recorded. 

Similarly, we are requiring that the drop 

filter socks on the bulk loading 

operations be inspected monthly to 

ensure they are in good condition and 

functioning properly. 

We are proposing certain notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. Those requirements are 

described in detail in section III.D. In 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36987 

selecting these requirements, we 

identified the information necessary to 

ensure that management practices are 

being followed and that emission 

control devices and equipment are 

maintained and operated properly. The 

proposed requirements ensure 

compliance with this proposed rule 

without posing a significant additional 

burden for facilities that must 

implement them. 

F. How did we decide to exempt this 

area source category from Title V permit 

requirements? 

We are proposing exemption from 

title V permitting requirements for 

affected sources in the prepared feeds 

manufacturing area source category for 

the reasons described below. 

Section 502(a) of the CAA provides 

that the Administrator may 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’’). 

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). 

In discussing these factors in the 

Exemption Rule, we further 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, in the Exemption Rule, 

we explained 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. 

In the Exemption Rule, in addition to 

determining whether compliance with 

title V requirements would be 

unnecessarily burdensome on an area 

source category, we considered, 

consistent with the guidance provided 

by the legislative history of section 

502(a), whether exempting the area 

source category would adversely affect 

public health, welfare or the 

environment. See 70 FR 15254–15255, 

March 25, 2005. As explained below, we 

propose that title V permitting is 

unreasonably burdensome for the area 

source category at issue in this proposed 

rule. We have also determined that the 

proposed exemptions from title V would 

not adversely affect public health, 

welfare and the environment. Our 

rationale for this decision follows here. 

In considering the exemption from 

title V requirements for sources in the 

category affected by this proposed rule, 

we first compared the title V 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements (factor one) to 

the requirements in the proposed 

NESHAP for the area source category. 

The proposed rule requires 

implementation of certain management 

practices and the use of add on controls 

for one process. We believe these 

practices are currently used at all 

facilities and the controls are in use at 

most facilities. 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 these 

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. The records are required to 

be maintained in a form suitable and 

readily available for expeditious review, 

and that they are kept for at least five 

years, the first two of which must be 

onsite. 

As part of the first factor, in addition 

to monitoring, we considered the extent 

to which title V could potentially 

enhance compliance for area sources 

covered by this proposed rule through 

recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements. We have considered the 

various title V recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements, including 

requirements for a 6-month monitoring 

report, deviation reports, and an annual 

certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6. 

For any prepared feeds manufacturing 

area source, this proposed NESHAP 

requires an Initial Notification and a 

Notification of Compliance Status. This 

proposed rule also requires facilities to 

certify compliance with the control 

device and management practices. In 

addition, facilities must maintain 

records showing compliance through 

the required parameter monitoring and 

deviation requirements. The 

information required in the deviation 

reports is similar to the information that 

must be provided in the deviation 

reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) 

and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3). 

We acknowledge that title V might 

impose additional compliance 

requirements on this category, but we 

have determined that the monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements of the proposed NESHAP 

are sufficient to assure compliance with 

the provisions of the NESHAP, and title 

V would not significantly improve those 

compliance requirements. 

For the second factor, we determine 

whether title V permitting would 

impose a significant burden on the area 

sources in the category and whether that 

burden would be aggravated by any 

difficulty the source may have in 

obtaining assistance from the permitting 

agency. Subjecting any source to title V 

permitting imposes certain burdens and 

costs that do not exist outside of the title 

V program. EPA estimated that the 

average cost of obtaining and complying 

with a title V permit was $38,500 per 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
36988 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

source for a 5-year permit period, 

including fees. See Information 

Collection Request for Part 70 Operating 

Permit Regulations, January 2000, EPA 

ICR Number 1587.05. EPA does not 

have specific estimates for the burdens 

and costs of permitting these types of 

prepared feeds manufacturing area 

sources; however, there are certain 

activities associated with the part 70 

and 71 rules. These activities are 

mandatory and impose burdens on any 

facility subject to title V. They include 

reading and understanding permit 

program guidance and regulations; 

obtaining and understanding permit 

application forms; answering follow-up 

questions from permitting authorities 

after the application is submitted; 

reviewing and understanding the 

permit; collecting records; preparing 

and submitting monitoring reports on a 

6-month or more frequent basis; 

preparing and submitting prompt 

deviation reports, as defined by the 

State, which may include a combination 

of written, verbal, and other 

communications methods; collecting 

information, preparing, and submitting 

the annual compliance certification; 

preparing applications for permit 

revisions every 5 years; and, as needed, 

preparing and submitting applications 

for permit revisions. In addition, 

although not required by the permit 

rules, many sources obtain the 

contractual services of consultants to 

help them understand and meet the 

permitting program’s requirements. The 

ICR for part 70 provides additional 

information on the overall burdens and 

costs, as well as the relative burdens of 

each activity described here. Also, for a 

more comprehensive list of 

requirements imposed on part 70 

sources (hence, burden on sources), see 

the requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, 

70.6, and 70.7. 

In assessing the second factor for 

facilities affected by this proposal, we 

found that many of the facilities that 

would be affected by this proposed rule 

are small entities. These small sources 

lack the technical resources that would 

be needed to comply with permitting 

requirements and the financial 

resources that would be needed to hire 

the necessary staff or outside 

consultants. As discussed above, title V 

permitting would impose significant 

costs on these area sources, and, 

accordingly, we conclude that title V is 

a significant burden for sources in this 

category. Furthermore, given the 

number of sources in the category, it 

would likely be difficult for them to 

obtain sufficient assistance from the 

permitting authority. Thus, we conclude 

that factor two supports title V 

exemption for this category. 

The third factor, which is closely 

related to the second factor, is whether 

the costs of title V permitting for these 

area sources would be justified, taking 

into consideration any potential gains in 

compliance likely to occur for such 

sources. We explained above under the 

second factor that the costs of 

compliance with title V would impose 

a significant burden on many of the 

approximately 450 facilities affected by 

the proposed rule. We also concluded in 

considering the first factor that, while 

title V might impose additional 

requirements, the monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in the proposed NESHAP 

assure compliance with the emission 

standards imposed in the NESHAP. In 

addition, below in our consideration of 

the fourth factor, we find that there are 

adequate implementation and 

enforcement programs in place to assure 

compliance with the NESHAP. Because 

the costs, both economic and noneconomic, of compliance with title V are 

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 

title V exemptions for this area source 

category. 

The fourth factor we considered in 

determining if title V is unnecessarily 

burdensome is whether there are 

implementation and enforcement 

programs in place that are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the NESHAP 

without relying on title V permits. EPA 

has implemented regulations that 

provide States the opportunity to take 

delegation of area source NESHAP, and 

we believe that State delegated 

programs are sufficient to assure 

compliance with this NESHAP. See 40 

CFR part 63, subpart E (States must have 

adequate programs to enforce the 

section 112 regulations and provide 

assurances that they will enforce the 

NESHAP before EPA will delegate the 

program). 

We also noted that EPA retains 

authority to enforce this NESHAP 

anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 

and 114. Also, States and EPA often 

conduct voluntary compliance 

assistance, outreach, and education 

programs (compliance assistance 

programs), which are not required by 

statute. We determined that these 

additional programs will supplement 

and enhance the success of compliance 

with these proposed standards. We 

believe that the statutory requirements 

for implementation and enforcement of 

this NESHAP by the delegated States 

and EPA and the additional assistance 

programs described above together are 

sufficient to assure compliance with 

these proposed standards without 

relying on title V permitting. 

In light of all the information 

presented here, we believe that there are 

implementation and enforcement 

programs in place that are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the proposed 

standards without relying on title V 

permitting. 

Balancing the four factors for this area 

source category strongly supports the 

proposed finding that title V is 

unnecessarily burdensome. While title 

V might add additional compliance 

requirements if imposed, we believe 

that there would not be significant 

improvements to the compliance 

requirements in this proposed rule 

because the proposed rule requirements 

are specifically designed to assure 

compliance with the emission standards 

imposed on this area source category. 

We further maintain that the economic 

and non-economic costs of compliance 

with title V would impose a significant 

burden on the sources. We determined 

that the high relative costs would not be 

justified given that there is likely to be 

little or no potential gain in compliance 

if title V were required. And, finally, 

there are adequate implementation and 

enforcement programs in place to assure 

compliance with these proposed 

standards. Thus, we propose that title V 

permitting is ‘‘unnecessarily 

burdensome’’ for this area source 

category. 

In addition to evaluating whether 

compliance with title V requirements is 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’, EPA also 

considered, consistent with guidance 

provided by the legislative history of 

section 502(a), whether exempting this 

area source category from title V 

requirements would adversely affect 

public health, welfare, or the 

environment. Exemption of this area 

source category from title V 

requirements would not adversely affect 

public health, welfare, or the 

environment because the level of 

control would remain the same if a 

permit were required. The title V permit 

program does not 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. As stated in 

our consideration of factor one for this 

category, title V would not lead to 

significant improvements in the 

compliance requirements applicable to 

existing or new area sources. 

Furthermore, we explained in the 

Exemption Rule that requiring permits 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36989 

for the large number of area sources 

could, at least in the first few years of 

implementation, potentially adversely 

affect public health, welfare, or the 

environment by shifting State agency 

resources away from assuring 

compliance for major sources with 

existing permits to issuing new permits 

for these area sources, potentially 

reducing overall air program 

effectiveness. Based on the above 

analysis, we conclude that title V 

exemptions for these area sources will 

not adversely affect public health, 

welfare, or the environment for all of the 

reasons explained above. 

For the reasons stated here, we are 

proposing to exempt this area source 

category from title V permitting 

requirements. 

V. Summary of Impacts of the Proposed 

Standards 

We project that the baseline PM 

emissions from the estimated 1,800 

facilities in the prepared feeds source 

category are around 32,000 tons/yr, with 

around 7,500 tons/yr of PM2.5, 100 tons/ 

yr of manganese compounds and just 

under 2 tons/yr of chromium 

compounds. We believe that the 

management practices in the proposed 

rule 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 daily production levels exceeding 

50 tons per day will result in emission 

reductions of around 4,000 tons/yr of 

PM, 900 tons/yr of PM2.5, and around 11 

tons/yr of manganese compounds and 

chromium compounds emissions. While 

cyclones do remove PM from the air 

stream, these solids are typically 

recycled back to the process. Therefore, 

we do not anticipate any significant 

indirect or secondary air impacts of this 

rule as proposed. In addition, we do not 

expect any non-air health, 

environmental, or energy impacts. 

As noted above, we believe all 

prepared feed manufacturing facilities 

already implement the proposed 

management practices. Therefore, there 

will be no additional costs for these 

measures. We estimate that the 

nationwide capital costs for the 

installation of cyclones on the pelleting 

cooling operations at the large facilities 

will be just over $3 million. The 

associated annual costs are estimated to 

be just under $4 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 

only around 2 percent of the facilities in 

the category would potentially need to 

change under the proposed regulatory 

alternative. The potential impact on the 

industry as a percentage of the value of 

shipments is small. Under the proposed 

regulatory alternative, the largest 

potential impact is estimated as 0.96 

percent of shipments for a subset of 

firms with an overall impact of 0.94 

percent of shipments for the industry as 

a whole. As a result, this action is not 

expected to have a significant impact on 

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. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because 

it may raise novel legal or policy issues. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the 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 proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document 

prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA 

ICR number 2354.01. 

The recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in this proposed rule are 

based on the requirements in EPA’s 

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements in the 

General Provisions are mandatory 

pursuant to section 114 of the CAA (42 

U.S.C. 7414). All information other than 

emissions data submitted to EPA 

pursuant to the information collection 

requirements for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made is safeguarded 

according to CAA section 114(c) and the 

Agency’s implementing regulations at 

40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

This proposed NESHAP would 

require 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). Records 

would be required to demonstrate 

compliance with the monitoring and 

management practice requirements that 

ensure good operation and maintenance 

of capture and control devices. The 

owner or operator of a prepared feeds 

manufacturing facility also is subject to 

notification and recordkeeping 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 and 63.10 

of the General Provisions (subpart A), 

although we are proposing that annual 

compliance reports are sufficient 

instead of semiannual reports. 

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 approximately $2.1 

million or $1,200 per facility. The 

average annual reporting burden is 0.6 

hours per response, with approximately 

2 responses per facility. The only capital 

and operating and maintenance costs 

are associated with the installation of 

monitoring equipment on cyclones 

required to control pelleting emissions 

at the larger prepared feeds 

manufacturing facilities. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

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’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, EPA has established 

a public docket for this rule, which 

includes this ICR, under Docket ID 

number [EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0080]. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this proposed 

rule for where to submit comments to 

EPA. Send comments to OMB at the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk 

Office for EPA. Since OMB is required 

to make a decision concerning the ICR 

between 30 and 60 days after July 27, 

2009, a comment to OMB is best assured 

of having its full effect if OMB receives 

it by August 26, 2009. The final rule 

will respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
36990 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 proposed 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 (less than 500 employees for 

NAICS 311119); (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district, or special district with a 

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

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

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed rule is estimated to 

impact 1,800 prepared feed 

manufacturing facilities that are 

currently operating. We estimate that all 

of these facilities may be small entities. 

We have determined that small entity 

compliance costs, as assessed by the 

facilities’ cost-to-sales ratio, are 

expected to be less than 0.004 percent. 

The costs are so small that the impact 

is not expected to be significant. The 

impact on small entities is significantly 

decreased since the proposed rule 

would not require plants with daily 

production levels less than 50 tons per 

day to install add-on controls. Although 

this proposed rule contains 

requirements for new area sources, we 

are not aware of any new area sources 

being constructed now or planned in the 

next 3 years, and consequently, we did 

not estimate any impacts for new 

sources. 

Although this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this proposed rule on small 

entities. 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 based 

on information obtained from small 

businesses in our surveys, consultation 

with small business representatives on 

the state and national level, and 

industry representatives that are 

affiliated with small businesses. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed 

action on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, and tribal 

governments or the private sector. This 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any State, local, tribal governments or 

the private sector. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

proposed rules contain no requirements 

that apply to such governments, and 

impose no obligations upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999) requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

state and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ is 

defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that 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.’’ 

This proposed rule 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 proposed 

rule does not impose any requirements 

on state and local governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this proposed rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and state and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from state and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This action would not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 

The action imposes requirements on 

owners and operators of specified area 

sources and not tribal governments. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 F.R. 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 proposed 

rule is not subject to Executive Order 

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 action 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 proposed 

rule would not likely have any 

significant adverse energy impacts. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36991 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially-applicable 

voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will 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 proposed rule will establish 

national standards for the prepared 

feeds manufacturing area source 

category. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: July 21, 2009. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

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. 

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 feed 

manufacturing facilities? 

63.11622 What are the monitoring 

requirements for new and existing 

sources? 

63.11623 [Reserved] 

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 feed 

manufacturing facility that uses 

chromium compounds or manganese 

compounds and is an area source of 

emissions of these hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP). 

(b) The provisions of this subpart 

apply to each new and existing prepared 

feed manufacturing facility affected 

source. A prepared feeds manufacturing 

affected source is the collection of all 

equipment and activities necessary to 

perform prepared feeds manufacturing 

operations from the point in the process 

where chromium compounds or 

manganese compounds are added to the 

point where the finished prepared feed 

product leaves the facility. This 

includes, but is not limited to, areas 

where materials containing chromium 

compounds and manganese compounds 

are stored, areas where the chromium 

compounds and manganese compounds 

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. 

(c) A prepared feed manufacturing 

facility affected source exists if you 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction of the facility on or 

before July 27, 2009. 

(d) A prepared feed manufacturing 

facility affected source is new if you 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction of the facility after July 

27, 2009. 

(e) This subpart does not apply to the 

facilities identified in paragraphs (e)(1) 

and (2) of this section. 

(1) Prepared feed manufacturing 

facilities that do not add any materials 

containing chromium compounds or 

manganese compounds 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). 

(f) 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 two years after the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. 

(b) If you start up a new affected 

source on or before the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register, you must achieve 

compliance with the applicable 

provisions of this subpart by no later 

than the date of publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register. 

(c) If you start up a new affected 

source after the date of publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register, 

you must achieve compliance with the 

applicable provisions of this subpart 

upon startup of your affected source. 

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 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
36992 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section 

at all times. 

(a) In all areas of the affected source, 

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, as 

practicable. 

(2) You must maintain and operate all 

process equipment in a manner to 

minimize dust creation. 

(b) You must store any raw materials 

containing chromium compounds or 

manganese compounds in closed 

containers. 

(c) The mixer where materials 

containing chromium compounds or 

manganese compounds 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 compounds or 

manganese compounds must be added 

to the mixer in a manner that minimizes 

emissions. 

(d) For the bulk loading process 

where prepared feed products are 

loaded into trucks or railcars, you must 

use filter drop socks at the end of the 

loading arms. 

(e) For the pelleting operations at 

facilities with a daily production rate 

exceeding 50 tons per day, you must 

capture emissions and route them to a 

cyclone designed to reduce emissions of 

particulate matter less than 10 microns 

in diameter by at least 95 percent. You 

must operate and maintain the cyclone 

in accordance with manufacturer’s 

specifications. This includes operating 

within the pressure drop range 

recommended by the manufacturer. You 

must comply with the monitoring 

requirements in § 63.11622(b) of this 

subpart. 

§ 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 filter drop sock reduce emissions from 

a bulk loading process, you must 

perform monthly inspections of each 

filter drop sock 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 monitoring 

requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and 

(2) of this section. 

(1) You must perform monthly 

inspections of the cyclone for corrosion, 

erosion, or any other damage that could 

result in air in-leakage, and record the 

results in accordance with 

§ 63.11624(c)(5)(ii). 

(2) You must monitor pressure drop at 

least once per day. You must also record 

the pressure drop in accordance with 

§ 63.11624(c)(5)(iii). 

§ 63.11623 [Reserved] 

§ 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. You must 

submit the Initial Notification required 

by § 63.9(b)(2) of the General Provisions 

no later than 120 days after the date of 

publication of the final rule 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; 

(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 2 years and 120 

days after the date of publication of the 

final rule 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 

120 days after the date of publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register, 

whichever is later. This Notification of 

Compliance Status must include the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) Your company’s name and address; 

(ii) A statement by a responsible 

official with that official’s name, title, 

phone number, e-mail address and 

signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, 

and completeness of the notification 

and a statement of whether the source 

has complied with all the relevant 

standards and other requirements of this 

subpart; 

(iii) The pressure drop range that 

constitutes proper operation of the 

cyclone 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. 

(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)(4) of this section. You 

must submit the report by March 15 if 

you had any instance described by 

paragraph (b)(3) or (b)(4) of this section. 

(1) Your company’s name and 

address. 

(2) A statement by a responsible 

official with that official’s name, title, 

phone number, e-mail address and 

signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, 

and completeness of the notification 

and a statement of whether the source 

has complied with all the relevant 

standards and other requirements of this 

subpart. 

(3) If the source is not in compliance, 

include a description of deviations from 

the applicable requirements, the time 

periods during which the deviations 

occurred, and the corrective actions 

taken. 

(4) Identification of all instances 

when the daily pressure drop across a 

cyclone is outside of the pressure drop 

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. 

(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) You must keep a monthly record 

certifying that you have complied with 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36993 

the management practices in 

§ 63.11621(a), (b), (c), and (d). 

(4) For each filter drop sock used to 

comply with the requirements in 

§ 63.11621(d), you must keep the 

records of all monthly inspections 

including the information identified in 

paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this 

section. 

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

inspection; 

(ii) Person performing the inspection; 

(iii) Results of the inspection, 

including the date, time, and duration of 

the corrective action period from the 

time the inspection indicated a problem 

to the time of the indication that the 

filter drop sock was replaced or restored 

to proper operation. 

(5) For each cyclone used to comply 

with the requirements in § 63.11621(e), 

you must keep the records in paragraphs 

(c)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) Manufacturer’s specifications. 

(ii) Records of all quarterly 

inspections including the information 

identified in paragraphs (c)(5)(ii)(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. 

(iii) Records of the daily pressure 

drop 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. 

(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. 

Other Requirements and Information 

§ 63.11625 What parts of the General 

Provisions apply to my facility? 

Table 1 of this subpart shows which 

parts of the General Provisions in 

§§ 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you. 

§ 63.11626 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

(a) This subpart can be implemented 

and enforced by EPA or a delegated 

authority such as your state, local, or 

tribal agency. If the EPA Administrator 

has delegated authority to your state, 

local, or tribal agency, then that agency 

has the authority to implement and 

enforce this subpart. You should contact 

your EPA Regional Office to find out if 

implementation and enforcement of this 

subpart is delegated to your state, local, 

or tribal agency. 

(b) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority of this subpart to 

a state, local, or tribal agency under 40 

CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities 

contained in paragraph (c) of this 

section are retained by the EPA 

Administrator and are not transferred to 

the state, local, or tribal agency. 

(c) The authorities that cannot be 

delegated to state, local, or tribal 

agencies are specified in paragraphs 

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

(1) Approval of an alternative 

nonopacity emissions standard under 

§ 63.6(g). 

(2) Approval of an alternative opacity 

emissions standard under § 63.6(h)(9). 

(3) Approval of a major change to test 

methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A 

‘‘major change to test method’’ is 

defined in § 63.90. 

(4) Approval of a major change to 

monitoring under § 63.8(f). A ‘‘major 

change to monitoring’’ is defined in 

§ 63.90. 

(5) Approval of a major change to 

recordkeeping and reporting under 

§ 63.10(f). A ‘‘major change to 

recordkeeping/reporting’’ is defined in 

§ 63.90. 

§ 63.11627 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

Terms used in this subpart are 

defined in the CAA, in § 63.2, and in 

this section. 

Cyclone means a mechanically aided 

collector that uses inertia to separate 

particulate matter from the gas stream as 

it spirals through the cyclone. 

Daily production level means the 

average amount of prepared feed 

product produced each day over a 

typical annual period. 

Filter drop sock means a 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. Flexible 

spouts are considered filter drop socks. 

Pelleting operations means all 

operations that make pelleted food from 

meal, including but not limited to, the 

steam conditioning, die-casting, drying, 

cooling, and crumbling, and 

granulation. 

Prepared feed manufacturing facility 

means a facility that produces feeds for 

large and small animals, not including 

dogs and cats. 

§ 63.11628—63.11638 [Reserved] 

Tables to Subpart DDDDDDD of Part 63 

Table 1 to Subpart DDDDDDD of Part 

63—Applicability of General Provisions 

to Prepared Feeds Manufacturing Area 

Sources 

As required in § 63.11619, you must 

meet each requirement in the following 

table that applies to you. 

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 ................ No. 

63.8 ..................................................................... Monitoring Requirements ................................. Yes. 

63.9(a), (b), (c), (d), (h), (i), and (j) .................... Notification Requirements. ............................... Yes. 

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


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
36994 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Citation Subject Applies to Subpart DDDDDDD? 

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) ........... .......................................................................... 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. 

[FR Doc. E9–17826 Filed 7–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0501; FRL–8934–1] 

National Oil and Hazardous Substance 

Pollution Contingency Plan National 

Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Delete the 

Southern California Edison, Visalia Pole 

Yard Superfund Site from the National 

Priorities List. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region IX is issuing a 

Notice of Intent to Delete the Southern 

California Edison (SCE), Visalia Pole 

Yard Superfund Site (Site) located in 

northeastern Visalia, Tulare County, 

California, from the National Priorities 

List (NPL), and requests public 

comments on this action. The NPL, 

promulgated pursuant to section 105 of 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 

an appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and 

the State of California, through the 

Department of Toxic Substances Control 

(DTSC), have determined that all 

appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA, other than operation, 

maintenance, and five-year reviews, 

have been completed. However, this 

deletion does not preclude future 

actions under Superfund. 

DATES: Comments concerning deletion 

of this Site must be received by August 

26, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2009–0501 by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: lane.jackie@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (415) 947–3528. 

• Mail: Jackie Lane, Community 

Involvement Coordinator, U.S. EPA 

Region IX (SFD 6–3), 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California 94105. 

• Phone: (415) 972–3236. 

• Hand delivery: U.S. EPA Region IX 

(SFD 6–3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California 94105. Deliveries 

are only accepted during regular office 

days and hours of operation (Monday 

through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.). 

Special arrangements will need to be 

made with EPA staff for deliveries of 

boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009– 

0501. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means that EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless it 

is provided it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through http://www.regulations.gov, 

your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the publicly available docket on 

the Internet. EPA recommends that all 

submittals include your name and other 

contact information (i.e. e-mail and/or 

physical address and phone number). 

Please note that electronic file 

submittals should be free of any 

physical defects and computer viruses 

and avoid the use of special characters 

and any form of encryption. If technical 

difficulties prevent EPA from reading 

your comment and cannot contact you 

for clarification, EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment. 

Docket 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the http://www.regulations.gov index; 

however, although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available (e.g. CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by 

disclosure statute. Certain other 

materials, such as copyrighted 

materials, will be publicly available 

only in the hard copy. All other publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Site Information repositories below: 

U.S. EPA Superfund Records Center, 95 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105–3901, (415) 536– 

2000. 

Tulare County Public Library, 200 West 

Oak Street, Visalia, CA 93291, (818) 

952–0603. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charnjit Bhullar, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. EPA Region IX (SFD 7– 

3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105, (415) 972–3960. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

today’s Federal Register, we are 

publishing a direct final Notice of 

Deletion of the Southern California 

Edison (SCE), Visalia Pole Yard 

Superfund Site without prior Notice of 

Intent to Delete because we view this as 

a noncontroversial revision and 

anticipate no adverse comment. We 

have explained our reasons for this 

deletion in the preamble to the direct 

final Notice of Deletion, and those 

reasons are incorporated herein. If we 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS