Document ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469-1360
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2008-12-18T05:00Z

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY					

40 CFR PartParts 302 and 355

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469; FRL-####-#]

RIN 20402050-AG37

CERCLA/EPCRA Administrative Reporting Exemption for Air Releases of
Hazardous Substances Fromfrom Animal Waste at Farms

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Final Rule.

_______________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY:  This final rule provides an administrative reporting exemption
from particular notification requirements under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, as amended.  In addition, this final rule provides a limited
administrative reporting exemption in certain cases from requirements
under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, also known
as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. 
Specifically, the administrative reporting exemption applies to releases
of hazardous substances to the air that meet or exceed their reportable
quantity where the source of those hazardous substances is animal waste
at farms.  The proposed rule also included a parallel administrative
reporting exemption from the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), also known as Title III of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act.  The Agency is not making a final
decision with respect to this part of the proposed rule at this time. 
Additionally, nothing

Nothing in this final rule changes the notification requirements if
hazardous substances are released to the air from any other source other
than animal waste at farms (e.g., ammonia tanks), as well as releases of
or if any hazardous substances from animal waste are released to any
other environmental media, (e.g., soil, ground water, or surface water)
when the release of those hazardous substances is at or above its
reportable quantity.  Also, the administrative reporting exemption under
section 103(a) of  CERCLA of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, does not limit any of the Agency’s
other authorities under CERCLA relating to response, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act sections 104
(response authorities), 106 (abatement actions, ), 107 (liability), or
any other provisions of CERCLA, nor does it affect one’s obligation to
report under EPCRAthe Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act or the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know
Act.

 with the Agency’s goal to reduce reporting burden, particularly
considering there would likely be nothat Federal, State or local
response to such release reports.officials are unlikely to respond to
notifications of air releases of hazardous substances from animal waste
at farms. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on [Insert date 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register.]  

ADDRESSES:  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID No. [EPA-HQ- SFUND-2007-0469].  All documents in the docket are
listed on the   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" "
www.regulations.gov  web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute.  Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form.  Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" "
www.regulations.gov  or in hard copy at the Superfund Docket, EPA/DC,
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC.  The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
Superfund Docket is (202) 566-0276).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Lynn Beasley, Regulation and Policy
Development Division, Office of Emergency Management (5104A),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-1965; fax number:  (202) 564-2625;
e-mail address: Beasley.lynn@epa.gov.  

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The contents of this preamble are listed in
the following outline:

General Information

Does This Action Apply to Me?

What is the Statutory Authority for This Rulemaking?

Which Hazardous Substances Are We Exempting from the Notification
Requirements of CERCLA and EPCRA?

Background  

Summary of This Action

What is the Scope of This Final Rule?

How Does This Rule Differ Fromfrom the Proposed Rule?

Exemption from CERCLA section 103 reporting

Thresholds for Exemption from EPCRA section 304 reporting

Continuous Release Reporting

Definitions

Animal Waste

Farm

What is Notnot Included Withinwithin the Scope of This Rule

What is EPA’s Rationale for This Administrative Reporting Exemption?

What Are the Economic Impacts of This Administrative Reporting
Exemption?

Response to Comments

Comments Regarding Elimination of Reporting Requirement

Comments Regarding Risk, Harm, and Exposure

Comments Regarding the Agency’s Statutory Authority to Issue This
Rulemaking

Comments Indicating a Misunderstanding of the Proposed Rule

Comments Regarding Definitions

Animal Waste

Farm

Comments Regarding Other Facilities

Comments Regarding Possible Situations that Would Necessitate a Response

Statutory and Regulatory Reviews

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments)  

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health
& Safety Risks) 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use) 

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) 

Congressional Review Act 

General Information 

Does This Action Apply to Me? 

Type of Entity	Examples of Affected Entities

Industry	NAICS Code 111 – Crop Production

NAICS Code 112 – Animal Production

State and/or Local Governments	State Emergency Response Commissions, and
Local Emergency Planning Committees.

Federal Government	National Response Center.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. 
This table lists the types of entities that EPA is currently aware could
potentially be affected by this action; however, other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be affected.  To determine whether
your facility is affected by this action, you should carefully examine
the criteria in section III.A of this final rule and the applicability
criteria in § 302.6 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(CFR) and 40 CFR Part 355, Subpart C-Emergency Release Notification.  
If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding “FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT” section.

What is the Statutory Authority for This Rulemaking? 

Section 104 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., as amended
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986,
gives the Federal government broad authority to respond to releases or
threats of releases of hazardous substances from vessels and facilities.
 The term "hazardous substance" is defined in section 101(14) of CERCLA
primarily by reference to other Federal environmental statutes.  
Section 102 of CERCLA gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or
the Agency) authority to designate additional hazardous substances. 
Currently, there are approximately 760 CERCLA hazardous substances,
exclusive of Radionuclides, F-, K-, and Unlisted Characteristic
Hazardous Wastes.

CERCLA section 103(a) calls for immediate notification to the National
Response Center (NRC) when the person in charge of a facility has
knowledge of a release of a hazardous substance equal to or greater than
the reportable quantity (RQ) established by EPA for that substance.  In
addition to the notification requirements established pursuant to CERCLA
section 103, section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq., requires the
owner or operator of certain facilities to immediately report to State
and local authorities releases of CERCLA hazardous substances or any
extremely hazardous substances (EHSs) if they exceed their RQ (see 40
CFR 355.33).  This final rule only applies to CERCLA section 103
notification requirements.  , including the provisions that allow for
continuous release reporting found in paragraph (f)(2) of CERCLA section
103, and EPCRA section 304 notification requirements.

The Agency has previously granted such administrative reporting
exemptions (AREs) under the CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304
notification requirements where the Agency has determined that a
federalFederal response to such a release is impracticable or unlikely. 
For example, on March 19, 1998, the Agency issued a final rule (see 63
FR 13459) that granted exemptions for releases of naturally occurring
radionuclides.  The rule, entitled Administrative Reporting Exemptions
for Certain Radionuclide Releases (“Radionuclide ARE”), granted
exemptions for releases of hazardous substances that pose little or no
risk or to which a Federal response is infeasible or inappropriate (see
63 FR 13461). 

The Agency relies on CERCLA sections 102(a), 103, and 115 (the general
rulemaking authority under CERCLA) as authority to issue regulations
governing section 103 notification requirements. The Agency relies on
EPCRA section 304 as authority to issue regulations governing EPCRA
section 304 notification requirements, and EPCRA section 328 for general
rulemaking authority.  The Agency will continue to require certain
reports under EPCRA section 304, specifically for those facilities that
meet the size thresholds in 40 CFR 355.31(g) and outlined below in
section III.B.ii of this preamble.

Which Hazardous Substances Are We Exempting from the Notification
Requirements of CERCLA and EPCRA? 

EPA is exempting certain releases of hazardous substances to the air
from the notification requirements of CERCLA and to a limited extent
EPCRA emergency notifications, as implemented in 40 CFR 302.6 and 40 CFR
Part 355, Subpart C-Emergency Notification Requirement, respectively. 
Specifically, we are exempting those hazardous substance releases that
are emitted to the air from animal waste at farms.  The exemption to the
CERCLA section 103 notification requirements will apply to all releases
of hazardous substances to the air from animal waste at farms.  EPA is,
at this time, not making a final decision with respect to the
administrative reporting exemption under section 304 of EPCRA and thus,
is limiting the administrative reporting exemptions in this final rule
to the CERCLA section 103 notification requirements.  ThereforeHowever,
to respond to comments expressing the desire to receive information
regarding releases from large concentrated animal feeding operations
(CAFOs), EPA is bifurcating these administrative reporting exemptions in
order to continue to require EPCRA section 304 emergency notifications
for those CAFO operations that confine the large CAFO threshold of an
animal species or above, as defined in the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program regulations.   As such, the exemption
to EPCRA section 304 emergency notification requirements remain in
effect for any operations that trigger the reporting requirements.  In
addition, will apply to air releases of hazardous substances from animal
waste at farms that are below the thresholds in 40 CFR 355.31(g) and for
those farms that have animals that are not stabled or confined.  (See 40
CFR 355.31(h))  For the purposes of this rule, EPA considers animals
(i.e., cattle) that reside primarily outside of an enclosed structure
(i.e., a barn or a feed lot) and graze on pastures, not to be stabled or
confined, and thus are exempted from the reporting requirements under
EPCRA Section 304.  

Section 324 of EPCRA requires that the follow-up emergency notice shall
be made available to the general public; thus emergency notifications
filed under EPCRA section 304 will be available to the public.  Farms
that are required to report their releases under EPCRA section 304
emergency notifications may continue to use continuous release reporting
as described in 40 CFR 355.32.

Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide are the most recognized hazardous
substances that are emitted from animal waste.  Specifically, ammonia is
a by-product of the break-down of urea and proteins that are contained
in animal waste, while hydrogen sulfide is another by-product of the
break-down of animal waste under anaerobic conditions.  However, other
hazardous substances, such as nitrousnitrogen oxide (NO) and certain
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) may also be released from animal
waste.  This rule extends the administrative reporting exemption under
section 103 of CERCLA to all hazardous substances emitted to the air
from animal waste at farms. 

These hazardous substances can be emitted when animal waste is contained
in a lagoon or stored in under-floor manure pits in some animal housing,
manure stockpiles, or in the open where animals congregateare stabled or
confined.  

Background  

Under CERCLA section 103(a), the person in charge of a vessel or
facility from which a CERCLA hazardous substance has been released into
the environment in a quantity that equals or exceeds its RQ must
immediately notify the NRC of the release.  A release is reportable if
an RQ or more is released into the environment within a 24-hour period
(see 40 CFR 302.6).  This reporting requirement serves as a trigger for
informing the Federal government of a release so that Federal personnel
can evaluate the need for a response in accordance with the National
Contingency Plan (NCP) and undertake any necessary response action in a
timely fashion.

The NRC is located at the United States Coast Guard (USCG) headquarters
and is the national communications center for the receipt of all
pollution incidents reporting.  The NRC is continuously staffed for
processing activities related to receipt of the notifications.  The NCP
regulations, 40 CFR 300.125, require that notifications of discharges
and releases be made by telephone and state that the NRC will
immediately relay telephone notices of discharges (i.e., oil) or
releases (i.e., hazardous substances) to the appropriate predesignated
federalFederal on-scene coordinator (OSC).  The NRC receives an average
of approximately 34,000 notifications of releases or discharges per
year, 99 percent of which are relayed to EPA.

Under EPCRA section 304(a), three release scenarios require
notification. 

•	First, if a release of an extremely hazardous substance occurs from
a facility at which a hazardous chemical is produced, used, or stored,
and such release requires a notification under section 103(a) of CERCLA,
the owner or operator of a facility shall immediately provide notice to
the community emergency coordinator for the local emergency planning
committees (LEPC) for any area likely to be affected by the release and
to the State emergency response commission (SERC) of any State likely to
be affected by the release.  (EPCRA section 304(a)(1))

•	EPCRA section 304(a) also requires the owner or operator of the
facility to immediately provide notice under EPCRA section 304(b) for
either of the following two scenarios: 

o	If the release is an extremely hazardous substance, but not subject to
the notifications under section 103(a) of CERCLA. (EPCRA section
304(a)(2))

o	If the release is not an extremely hazardous substance and only
subject to the notifications under section 103(a) of CERCLA. (EPCRA
section 304(a)(3)) 

EPCRA notification is to be given to the community emergency coordinator
for each LEPC for any area likely to be affected by the release, and the
SERC of any state likely to be affected by the release.  Through this
notification, state and local officials can assess whether a response
action to the release is appropriate.  EPCRA section 304 notification
requirements apply only to releases that have the potential for off-site
exposure and that are from facilities that produce, use, or store a
“hazardous chemical,” as defined by regulations promulgated under
the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) (29 CFR
1910.1200(c)) and by section 311 of EPCRA.  

Owners and operators of farms, like all other facilities, are required
to report the release of hazardous substances into the environment in
accordance with CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 when it meets
or exceeds the RQ of the hazardous substance.  For example, releases
into the environment of ammonia or any other hazardous substance, from
tanks located on a farm, at or above an RQ are required to be reported
under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304.  

In 2005, EPA received a petition (poultry petition) from the National
Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation, and U.S. Poultry & Egg
Association, seeking an exemption from the CERCLA and EPCRA reporting
requirements for ammonia emissions from poultry operations.  The Agency
published a notice in the Federal Register on December 27, 2005 (70 FR
76452), that acknowledged receipt of the poultry petition and requested
public comment.  The comment period closed on March 27, 2006.  This
final rule does not purport to address that petition.  EPA will respond
to the petition in a separate action. 

Also, in 2005, EPA offered the owners and operators of animal
agricultural operations an opportunity to participate in the National
Air Emissions Monitoring Study (air monitoring study), that is being
conducted by an independent, non-profit organization and overseen by
EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), through a consent agreement
with the Agency.  The purpose of the air monitoring study is to develop
emissions estimating methodologies for all animal agricultural
operations.   Over 2,600 animal feeding operations, representing over
14,000 farms, signed up to participate in the study.  The monitoring
study, which began in the spring of 2007 includes 25 representative
sites (lagoons or barns) on 21 different farms in 10ten states (NC, NY,
IA, WI, CA, KY, TX, WA, IN, and OK).  The sites will be monitored for a
period of two years, allowing the Agency to account for emissions
variability by season, and for the effect of any seasonal operational
changes (such as pumping out lagoons), that could have an effect on
emission levels. 

The consent agreement also requires that within 120 days after receiving
an executed copy of the consent agreement, for any farm that confines
more than 10ten times the large CAFO threshold of animal species, as
defined in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program regulations, the animal feeding operation provides to the NRC
and to the relevant local stateState and local emergency response
authorities written notice describing its location and stating
substantially as follows:

	“This operation raises [species] and may generate routine air
emissions

	of ammonia in excess of the reportable quantity of 100 pounds per 24
hours.

	A rough estimate of those emissions is [  ] pounds per 24 hours, but
this estimate

	could be substantially above or below the actual emission rate, which
is being

	determined through an ongoing monitoring study in cooperation with the 

	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  When that emission rate has been

	determined by this study, we will notify you of any reportable releases
pursuant 	

	to CERCLA section 103 or EPCRA section 304.  In the interim, further
information

	can be obtained by contacting [insert contact information for a person
in charge

	of the operation].”

The requirement that these very large animal feeding operations (AFOs)
immediately report estimated releases of ammonia was solely for the
purposes of the air compliance agreement and not for purposes of
reporting under CERCLA or EPCRA.  (See 70 FR 4958, Jan. 31, 2005.)

At the end of the monitoring study, EPA will use the data along with
other relevant available data to develop emissions estimating
methodologies.  The monitoring study results will be publicly available
upon completion of the study.  In addition, EPA will publish the
emissions estimating methodologies based on these results, within 18
months of the study’s conclusion.  Thus, such information will be
widely available to the public.  Further details on the air monitoring
study are available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/airmonitoringstudy.html" 
www.epa.gov/oecaagct/airmonitoringstudy.html .

Summary of This Action 

What is the Scope of This Final Rule? 

The scope of this rule is limited to releases of hazardous substances to
the air from animal waste at farms.  Specifically, the Agency is issuing
an administrative reporting exemption from the CERCLA section 103
notification requirements to the NRC (Federal government) as implemented
in 40 CFR 302.6. and a limited administrative reporting exemption from
the EPCRA section 304 notification requirements as implemented in 40 CFR
Part 355, Subpart C – Emergency Notification Requirement.  (See
Section III.B.ii. for the thresholds that limit the administrative
reporting exemption for EPCRA section 304.)  The scope of this rule is
intended to include all hazardous substances that may be emitted to the
air from animal waste at farms that would otherwise be reportable under
those sections.  The Agency is not, in this rule, defining facility,
ordinarynormal application of fertilizer, or routine agricultural
operations.  

How Does This Rule Differ From from the Proposed Rule? 

On December 28, 2007, the Agency proposed an administrative reporting
exemption from the CERCLA section 103 notification requirements and the
EPCRA section 304 emergency notification requirements for air releases
of hazardous substances that meet or exceed their RQ from animal waste
at all farms.  The public comment period lasted 90 days and closed on
March 27, 2008.  Through the public comment process, the Agency received
approximately 12,900 comments.  A substantial number of those comments
(about 11,600) came in the form of 15 mass mail campaigns that either
supported or opposed the proposed rule.  We also received many comments
from people who appear to have misunderstood the proposed rule, or
assumed that the proposed rule was a response to the poultry petition. 
Our response to significant comments are generally addressed below in
Section HIII.G of this preamble, with all comments addressed in a
response to comment document, which is in the docket
(EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469) to this final rule.

This rule finalizes the administrative reporting exemption from the
CERCLA section 103 notification requirements as proposed.  We are not
making a final decision regarding, but limits the administrative
reporting exemption to the EPCRA section 304 emergency notification
requirements by adding a size threshold.  That is, at or above the
threshold adopted in this final rule.  That is, regardless of the source
of the release (i.e.,., farms that generate animal waste, tanks,
lagoons), farms that release hazardous substances to the air at or above
the RQ must still report under EPCRA section 304, using the existing
notification procedures, which includeincluding the use of continuous
release reporting. As stated above, EPCRA section 304 notification
requirements apply only to releases that have the potential for off-site
exposure.  

The Agency is finalizing the administrative reporting exemption from the
CERCLA section 103 notification requirements because EPA continues to
believe that federalFederal on-scene coordinators would not are unlikely
to respond to notifications of air releases of hazardous substances from
animal waste at farms.    

Exemption from EPCRA section 304 reporting

The Agency also believes that State or local emergency response
authorities are unlikely to respond to notifications of air releases of
hazardous substances from animal waste at farms.  The Agency also
received no comments that indicate that state or local emergency
response authorities would respond to notifications of releases under
EPCRA.  However, the Agency did receive some comments from the public,
as well as from environmental groups, a coalition of family farmers, the
National Association of SARA Title III Program Officials (NASTTPO) among
and others, expressing the desire for information regarding emissions of
hazardous substances to the air from the largestlarge animal feeding
operations.  The comments from NASTTPO indicated that State emergency
response commissions may want information from these reports for other
purposes.  Comments from members of the public indicated that citizens
also may want information from the reports of the larger animal feeding
operations for purposes other than response.  BecauseAccordingly, EPA is
still evaluating commentsdecided to understand what information is being
sought from what size of facility, and for what purpose, EPA is not, at
this time, making a final decision regardingbifurcate the administrative
reporting exemption for the EPCRA section 304 so as to retain certain
emergency notifications.  Thus, the proposed changes to reporting under
EPCRA are not addressed in this rule. for large CAFOs.  In addition, we
sought comment on possible alternative definitions for farm, indicating
EPA might take factors such as size into account.  Although not
specifically addressing the definition of a farm, we did receive many
comments asserting that very large farms are no different than other
industrial sources and should be regulated as such.  We believe that our
threshold approach addresses those concerns. 

Thresholds for EPCRA section 304 reporting

A farm is above the threshold if it stables or confines animals in
numbers equal to or more than the numbers of animals specified for each
category given in the NPDES program regulations for large CAFOs.  These
thresholds are discussed further in section III.E. below.

700 mature dairy cows, whether milked or dry

1,000 veal calves

1,000 cattle other than mature dairy cows or veal calves.  Cattle
includes but is not limited to heifers, steers, bulls and cow/calf pairs

2,500 swine each weighing 55 pounds or more

10,000 swine each weighing less than 55 pounds

500 horses

10,000 sheep or lambs

55,000 turkeys

30,000 laying hens or broilers, if the farm uses a liquid manure
handling system

125,000 chickens (other than laying hens), if the farm uses other than
liquid manure handling system

82,000 laying hens, if the farm uses other than a liquid manure handling
system

30,000 ducks (if the farm uses other than a liquid manure handling
system)

5,000 ducks (if the farm uses a liquid manure handling system)

Continuous Release Reporting 

Continuous release reporting is available for those farms that are
required to report under EPCRA at or above the threshold described above
in section 304.II.B.ii.  In general, the Agency considers believes that
emissions from animal waste into the air to be sufficientlyare usually
continuous and stable in quantity and rate to qualify as continuous
releases pursuant to 40 CFR 302.8.  The regulations implementing EPCRA
section 304 are found in 40 CFR Part 355, Subpart C-Emergency Release
Notification and describe the information required for the EPCRA
emergency notifications.  At the present time, EPA has not adopted
conversion factors from which to derive quantities of common hazardous
substances from numbers of particular species of farm animals.  One
purpose of the air monitoring study is to develop estimating
methodologies.   In the meantime, when reports are submitted pursuant to
EPCRA section 304 for animal waste from farms, the Agency expects
reports to reflect good faith estimates from reporting entities.  In
addition, EPA intends to issue guidance to assist those farms that are
required to submit reports under EPCRA section 304 with continuous
release reporting, as provided in 40 CFR 355, Subpart C – Emergency
Release Notification.

Definitions 

The Agency believes it is important to provide clarity with respect to
the scope of the reporting exemption.  Therefore, the Agency is
providing definitions for animal waste and farm that only pertain to
regulations promulgated pursuant to CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section
304, specifically 40 CFR 302.3 (definitions).  Because the Agency is not
making a final decision regarding the administrative reporting
exemptions for EPCRA section 304 in this final rule, we are not
including the definitions for animal waste. and farm in 40 CFR 355.61. 
These definitions are not promulgated to apply for any other purpose.   

Animal Waste 

Animal Waste – means manure (feces, urine, and other excrement
produced by livestock), digestive emissions, and urea.  The definition
includes animal waste when mixed or commingled with bedding, compost,
feed, soil and other materials typically found with animal waste.

We sought comment on our proposed definition for animal waste, and
whether an alternative definition may be more appropriate. A few
commenters asked that we clarify that compost includes composted manure
and manure-based compost.  EPA agrees that the definition of animal
waste does include such compost and to lend further clarity to the
definition, we made a slight change.  Other comments on our proposed
definition for animal waste, along with our responses are addressed
below in section III.HG.v.1, of this preamble and in the response to
comment document available in the docket (EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469) to
this rule.   

Farm 

The Agency is limiting the reporting exemption to animal waste that is
generated on farms, and is using a specific definition for farm for this
administrative reporting exemption.  For the purpose of this
administrative reporting exemption only, EPA defines farm, by using the
same definition as that found in the National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS) Census of Agriculture, and adopting it.

Farm – means a facility on a tract of land devoted to the production
of crops or raising of animals, including fish, which produced and sold,
or normally would have produced and sold, $1,000 or more of agricultural
products during a year.

We sought comment on our proposed definition for a farm, and whether an
alternative definition may be more appropriate.  Based on the comments
received,  we concluded that the proposed definition for farm was not
consistent with other Agency uses for the term; that is, we realized
that the definition proposed had deviated from the NASS definition, as
well as the definition used by the Agency in its Spill Prevention,
Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule, that we intended to use.  As a
result, the definition for this rule has now been modified.  Other
comments on our proposed definition for farm, along with our responses
are addressed below in section III.HG.v.2, of this preamble and in the
response to comment document available in the docket
(EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469) to this rule.

What is Not not Included Withinwithin the Scope of This Rule? 

As noted previously, the administrative reporting exemption from the
CERCLA section 103 notification requirements is limited in scope to
those releases of hazardous substances to the air that meet or exceed
their RQ from animal waste at farms. EPA is not exempting from  and in
the case of Section 304 of EPCRA, only those releases of hazardous
substances to the air from animal waste at farms that are below the
thresholds in 40 CFR 355.31(g) are exempt.  EPA is not exempting from
the CERCLA section 103 or EPCRA section 304 notification requirements
releases of hazardous substances from animal waste that meet or exceed
the RQ to any other environmental media or facilityat any other
facilities other than farms (i.e., meat processing plants, slaughter
houses, tanneries).  Thus, notifications must still be submitted if, for
example, there was a release of any hazardous substances that meet or
exceed the RQ from animal waste into water (e.g., a lagoon burst) or if
there was a release of any hazardous substances that meet or exceedmeets
or exceeds the RQ from animal waste into the air or water at a slaughter
house or meat processing plant.  Likewise, EPA is not exempting from the
CERCLA section 103 or EPCRA section 304 notification requirements any
release of hazardous substances to the air abovethat meets or exceeds
the RQ from any source other than animal waste at farms.  Thus, for
example, EPA is not proposing to exempt ammonia releases from ammonia
storage tanks at farms.  

The Agency believes that in these situations, the release of hazardous
substances that meet or exceedmeets or exceeds the RQ should continue to
be reported because it is less clear that they will not result in a
response action from Federal, stateState or local governments. That is,
such notifications would alert the government to an emergency a
situation that could pose serious environmental consequences if not
immediately addressed.  

	Finally, it should be noted that the Agency is not making a final
decision in today’s final rule regarding the administrative reporting
exemption for the EPCRA section 304 notification requirements.  Thus,
owners and/or operators of farms must continue to comply with the EPCRA
section 304 reporting requirements.	Finally, it should be noted that no
CERCLA or EPCRA statutory requirements, other than the emergency
hazardous substance notification requirements under CERCLA section 103
and EPCRA section 304, are included within this rule.  The rule also
does not limit the Agency’s authority under CERCLA sections 104
(response authorities), 106 (abatement actions), 107 (liability), or any
other provisions of CERCLA and EPCRA to address releases of hazardous
substances from animal waste at farms.

What is EPA’s Rationale for This Administrative Reporting Exemption? 

EPA’s rationale for this administrative reporting exemption is based
on the purpose of notifying the NRC, and SERCs and LEPCs when a
hazardous substance is released, and then the likelihood that a response
to that release notification would be taken by the federal any
government.   agency.  

Upon receipt of a notification from the NRC, EPA determines whether a
response is appropriate.  See 40 CFR 300.130(c).  If it is determined
that a response is appropriate, the NCP regulations describe the roles
and responsibilities for responding to the release.  Thus, EPA
considered whether the Agency would ever take a response action, as a
result of such notification, for releases of hazardous substances to the
air that meet or exceed their RQ from animal waste at farms.  Our
conclusion is no, based on EPA’s experienceBased on our experience,
the Agency believes that Federal on-scene coordinators are unlikely to
respond to such notifications.    Specifically, to date, EPA has not
initiated a response to any NRC notifications of ammonia, hydrogen
sulfide, or any other hazardous substances released to the air where
animal waste at farms is the source of that release.  Moreover, we can
not foresee a situation where the Agency would initiate a response
action as a result of such notification.  Under this rule, however, EPA
retains its authority to respond to citizen complaints or requests for
assistance from stateState or local government agencies to investigate
concerns raised by farms.releases of hazardous substances from animal
waste at farms and respond if appropriate.  Furthermore, the Agency does
not need to receive such notifications in order to enforce applicable
Clean Water Act (CWA, ), Clean Air Act (CAA, ), Resource Conservation
and Recover Act (RCRA), and/or other applicable CERCLA and EPCRA
regulations at farms.  EPA retains the enforcement authority to address
threats to human health and the environment.    

Several statesStates and localities also indicated that such response
actions are unlikely to be taken as a result of a notification of
releases of hazardous substances from animal waste at farms. 
Specifically, EPA received 13 comment letters from stateState and/or
local emergency response agencies in response to our proposed rule, as
well as comments from 10 state agricultural departments that agreed with
the proposal to not require such notifications.  These commenters all
affirmed EPA’s belief that a response to a notification of air
emissions of hazardous substances from animal wastes is highly unlikely.
 In fact, while we also received comment letters from government
officials and others, including environmental groups, that the proposed
rule is not appropriate due to potential harmful effects of air
pollution emanating from animal feeding operations, we received no
comments from any government official suggesting a response action
should or would be taken.  

The Agency did receive comments expressing a concern that air emissions
of hazardous substances from animal waste at the largest animal feeding
operations may pose a risk and therefore stateState and local
governments and the public should continue to receive reports of such
emissions.  CERCLA and EPCRA do not require release reports under
section 103 of CERCLA and 304 of EPCRA, respectively, to be made
publicly available.  However, section 324 of EPCRA does require the LEPC
and the SERC to make publicly available each follow-up emergency notice
provided under section 304(c).  As noted above, because the agency is
still evaluating comments to understand what information from what size
facility is considered valuable to the public for what purpose, the
Agency is not at this time making a final decision regarding the
administrative reporting exemptions for EPCRA section 304 reporting
requirements in this final rule. 

	Based on these reasons, the Agency believes it is appropriate to
eliminate the administrative reporting requirement under CERCLA section
103, but not make a final decision in today’s final rule regarding the
administrative reporting requirements under EPCRA section 304 for
hazardous substances released to the air at farms where the source of
those hazardous substances is animal waste. Based on these comments, the
Agency has bifurcated the final rule and is promulgating an
administrative reporting exemption in order to maintain the EPCRA
section 304 reporting requirements for the largest farms, that is, those
farms that meet or exceed the thresholds described in section III.B.ii,
above.  For this rule, the threshold that will trigger reporting
requirements is the same as the numbers of animals specified in the
categories regulated by the NPDES program for large CAFOs.  Comments
regarding the elimination of the reporting requirements are discussed
below, in section III.G.i.

What Are the Economic Impacts of This Administrative Reporting
Exemption? 

This administrative reporting exemption will reduce the costs to farms
that release hazardous substances to the air that meet or exceed their
reportable quantityRQ from animal waste.  Entities that are expected to
experience a reduction in burden and cost include both the farms that
are no longer required to report those releases, as well as the Federal
government.  The economic analysis completed for this rule is available
in the docket for this rulemaking and is based on the underlying
economic analyses that were completed for the regulations that
established the notification requirements.   We estimate that this final
rule will reduce burden on farms associated with making notifications
under CERCLA section 103 and EPRCRA section 304 by approximately
3,4081,290,000 hours over the ten year period beginning in 2009 and
associated costs by approximately $155,31360,800,000 over the same
period.  We estimate that this rule will also reduce burden on the
Federal government (including Federal, State and local governments) for
receipt and processing of the notifications under CERCLA section 103 and
EPCRA section 304 by approximately 153161,000 hours over the ten year
period beginning in 2009 and associated costs by approximately
$7,7648,110,000 over the same period.  In evaluating the potential
burden and cost savings to those farms that would no longer be required
to make notifications under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 and
for the Federal government entities that isare no longer required to
receive and process such notifications, we used the same universe as
used in the 2003 CAFO Rule (see 68 FR 7176, Feb 12, 2003).  [Update
citation to reflect 2008 CAFO Rule when it goes final – expected
10/17/(see 73 FR 70417, Nov. 20, 2008]).    

Response to Comments 

The Agency received comments on: (1) the elimination of the reporting
requirement; (2) on the risk, harm, and exposure related to air
emissions from animal waste at farms; and (3) the Agency’s statutory
authority to issue this rulemaking.  Some comments also indicated a
misunderstanding of the proposed rule.  Lastly, the Agency sought
specific comments in four areas.  Those were: (1) definitions (animal
waste and farm); (2)  whether it is appropriate to expand the reporting
exemption to other facilities where animal waste is generated (i.e.,
zoos and circuses); (3)  whether there might be a situation where a
response would be triggered by such a notification of the release of
hazardous substances to the air from animal waste at farms; and (4) if
so, what an appropriate response would be.  The following is our
response to those substantive comments received.  Comments not addressed
in this preamble are addressed in the response to comment document that
can be found in the Agency’s docket for this rule
(EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469).

Comments Regarding Elimination of Reporting Requirement 

We received mixed comments on whether it is appropriate for the Agency
to eliminate the notification requirements under CERCLA section 103 and
EPCRA section 304 for hazardous substances released to the air at farms
where the source of those hazardous substances is animal waste.

Many commenters expressed general support for the proposed elimination
of the reporting requirements under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section
304.  Many of these commenters, including some local emergency response
agencies, stated that reporting emissions of hazardous substances to the
air that meet or exceed their RQ from animal waste is of little value as
it is common knowledge that agricultural operations release ammonia on
an ongoing basis and receipt of such notifications could prove to be a
hindrance in performing their mission by overwhelming the system with
notifications that will not be responded to.  Many commenters supporting
the elimination of the reporting requirements, particularly commenters
representing the agricultural community, also stated that emissions
reporting is costly and could put them out of business should they have
to adhere to such a regulation. Moreover, these same commenters defended
the proposal by pointing out that information about the location and
emissions of CAFOs is already publicly available.  That is,
county-levelFor example, one could readily determine the number of
laying hens there are in a particular county through county specific
data published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s)
National Agricultural Statistical Service makes it clear just how many
laying hens there are in a particular county. According to these
commenters, CERCLA/EPCRA reporting does not add in any meaningful way to
this knowledge base. 

On the other hand, the Agency received many comments that were opposed
to the elimination of the notification requirements under CERCLA section
103 and EPCRA section 304.  Many commenters opposed the proposed
elimination of these reporting requirements on the grounds that reports
provide good documentation, even if the content is not reviewed and
enforcement is lacking.no response is appropriate.  Several commenters
stated that reporting information about emissions enables citizens to
hold companies and local governments accountable in terms of how toxic
chemicals are managed and even allows agencies to identify a
facility’s proximity to schools where children may be at higher risk
of adverse health effects due to exposure. 

In addition, many commenters asserted that the proposed rule interferes
with the public’s right- to- know about large releases of toxic
chemicals. Others stated that factory farms should not be protected from
the laws that affect all other industries. Several commenters asserted
that CAFOs are not family farms, arguing that they are industries that
produce high amounts of pollutants and should be treated as such.

Finally, a commenter suggested that farms should be exempt from the
monitoring and reporting of pollutant releases until measuring and
testing procedures become more accurate and that the exemptions should
apply until there are more feasible monitoring practices enacted.  The
commenter argued that it was unfair to require such reporting when the
science surrounding ammonia releases is uncertain.

The Agency appreciates the perspectives of both sides of the reporting
issue.  We understand that the regulated community and some SERCs and
LEPCs believe that, in general, the release reports are unnecessary,
burdensome, and would not likely result in “new” information
regarding emissions from farms.  The Agency agrees.  However, many
commenters also argued that one of the purposes of reporting under EPCRA
section 304 is to provide the public with information regarding the
extent of releases at facilities that release hazardous substances,
particularly if the facility were to release , especially for large
quantities of such hazardous substances.  While only follow-up reports
under Section 304(c) are required to be publicly available, we
acknowledge the public right-to-know concern, and are still evaluating
comments on this issue to understand what information from what size
facilityCAFOs, is considered important for what purposes. . Therefore,
we have adopted a final rule that exemptsseeks to address both concerns.
 As such, farms would be exempt from reporting under CERCLA section 103
for the reporting of air releases of hazardous substances that meet or
exceed their reportable quantity from animal waste to the NRC,; but are
not making a final decision regarding the administrative reporting
exemption under section 304 of EPCRA.  Farms that have releases that
have the potential for off-site exposure, at the same time, those farms
that exceed the threshold established in 40 CFR 355.31(g), and described
above in section III.B.ii of this preamble, will still be required to
notify the community emergency coordinator for the LEPC for any area
likely to be affected by the release and to the SERC of any State likely
to be affected by the release under EPCRA section 304(b).    We believe
the threshold is appropriate to continue to make available information
regarding large CAFOs sought by commenters. In accordance with 40 CFR
355.31(h), farms that have animals that are not stabled or confined are
also exempt from reporting under EPCRA section 304.  For the purposes of
this rule, EPA considers animals (i.e., cattle) that reside primarily
outside of an enclosed structure (i.e., a barn) and graze on pastures
not to be stabled or confined.

In addition, after completion of the Air Monitoring Study and the
development and publication of emission estimating methodologies, the
Agency intends to review the results and consider if the threshold for
the EPCRA exemption is appropriate.  

Comments Regarding Risk, Harm, and Exposure 

EPA’s rationale for the proposed rule is based on the purpose of
notifying the NRC, and SERCs and LEPCs when a hazardous substance is
released, and then the likelihood that a response to that release would
be taken by any government agency.  Although we did not base our
proposal on levels of risk, harm, and exposure that could be associated
with these releases, we did receive much comment about risk, harm, and
exposure from the emissions.  The comments that cited risk, harm, and
exposure were used to either support or oppose the proposed rule.

In supporting the proposed rule, many commenters provided general
statements to the effect that emissions from CAFOs pose no threat to
public health or the environment.  Many other commenters also argued
that there is no evidence or studies that emissions pose any public
health risks or have environmental impacts that would warrant emergency
release reports from farms atto the federalFederal level.  

In opposing the proposed rule, a number of commenters submitted studies
to support their conclusion that emissions from some farms pose levels
of risk, harm, and exposure that should be taken into consideration by
the Agency.  Several commenters specifically cited a 2002 study
entitled, “Iowa Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Air Quality
Study,” conducted by Iowa State University and the University of Iowa
Study Group.  The study concluded that for workers at these operations,
“[t]here is now an extensive literature documenting acute and chronic
respiratory diseases and dysfunction among workers, especially swine and
poultry workers, from exposure to complex mixtures of particulates,
gases and vapors within CAFO units.” 

Several commenters suggested delaying any decisions on finalizing the
proposal until the Agency’s air monitoring study is complete. These
commenters argued that, “[e]ven though EPA says, ‘[t]he EPA has not
initiated a response to any NRC notifications of ammonia, hydrogen
sulfide, or any other hazardous substances releases to the air where
animal waste at farms is the source of that release,’ this does not
mean that they should not have or that the EPA will notmay find that
these airborne contaminants are more dangerous to human health than
thought. After EPA’s two-year monitoring study, which began in the
spring of 2007, the Agency may find these contaminants to be a much
larger issue than previously thought and be required to take serious
action.”  Many of the commenters who opposed the proposed rule also
provided information pertaining to the health impacts associated with
CAFOs.  OthersSome provided anecdotal evidence, while others cited
published literature drawing a causal link.  Additional information
regarding the anecdotal evidence and published literature is provided in
the response to comment document available in the docket
(HQ-EPA-SFUND-2007-0469) to this rule.  Finally, a number of commenters
suggested that the adverse health effects that have been demonstrated
should be sufficient to continue to mandate CERCLA and EPCRA reporting
of “toxic air emissions” and step up enforcement, as well. 

EPA appreciates the information provided by commenters, especially those
who submitted study information indicating the potential health issues
associated with the emissions from animal waste at farms.  We would
first note that a number of the studies or information provided
addressed risk or health issues for workers on the farm; reporting under
section 304 of EPCRA addresses releases that are off-site of the
facility.   In addition, as we noted previously, EPA’s OAR is
currently overseeing a comprehensive study of CAFO air emissions (air
monitoring study) that is being conducted by an independent, non-profit
organization.  The purpose of the air monitoring study is to develop
emissions estimating methodologies for all animal agricultural
operations.   Over 2,600 animal feeding operationsagreements,
representing over 14,000 farms, signed up for the study.  The monitoring
study, which began in the spring of 2007, includes 25 representative
sites (lagoons or barns) on 21 different farms in 10ten states (NC, NY,
IA, WI, CA, KY, TX, WA, IN, and OK).  The sites will be monitored for a
period of two years, allowing the Agency to account for emissions
variability by season, and for the effect of any seasonal operational
changes (such as pumping out lagoons), that could have an effect on
emission levels.  At the conclusion of the air monitoring study, EPA
will use the data along with any other relevant, available data to
develop emissions estimating methodologies.  The air monitoring study
results will be publicly available upon completion of the study.  In
addition, EPA will publish the emissions estimating methodologies based
on these results, within 18 months of the study’s conclusion.  At the
conclusion of this effort, EPA will have data to decide whether air
emission controls for CAFOs are warranted, and if so will adopt and
enforce those controls.  The notification requirements under CERCLA
section 103 would not provide the type of data required in order to draw
the same conclusions that the more comprehensive air monitoring study
can provide.  This rule does not address how air emissions from CAFOs
should be controlled.

In addition, the rationale used in this administrative reporting
exemption does not consider risk, harm and exposure.  That is, the
Agency is not making any determination on whether or not air emissions
of hazardous substances that meet or exceed their reportable quantity
from animal waste at farms pose either an environmental or human health
risk.  As we have discussed, EPA believes that a response to a
notification about an air release of a hazardous substance from animal
waste at a farm is unlikely and impracticable.  We are therefore
exempting those notifications from CERCLA section 103 notification
requirements.  Also, it should be remembered that EPA  and to a limited
extent EPCRA section 304 emergency notification requirements.  As
discussed above, EPA does recognize that the public may have a separate
use for the notifications, and therefore, the reporting exemption under
Section 304 of EPCRA is limited to farms that fall below the threshold
discussed in III.B.ii.  Moreover, EPA is not limiting any of its
response authorities in this rule (should a State or local agency
request assistance), nor are we limiting any the or our other
authorities under CERCLA that would allow the Agency to address threats
to human health and the environmentEPCRA. 

  

Comments Regarding the Agency’s Statutory Authority to Issue This
Rulemaking 

A number of commenters challenged EPA’s legal authority to grant these
exemptions by stating that CERCLA and EPCRA do not give EPA the
authority to grant reporting exemptions. Another commenter argues that
EPA may not solely rest its basis for the exemption solely on evidence
that a Federal response to animal waste releases is unlikely.  

EPA disagrees with the commenters that challenge our authority to
provide administrative reporting exemptions.  First, we would note that
EPA has on two other occasions exercised its authority to extend
administrative reporting exemptions to certain well-defined release
scenarios.  Specifically, on March 19, 1998, the Agency issued a final
rule (see 63 FR 13459) that granted exemptions for releases of naturally
occurring radionuclides.  The rule entitled, Administrative Reporting
Exemptions for Certain Radionuclide Releases (“Radionuclide ARE”),
granted exemptions for releases of hazardous substances that pose little
or no risk or to which a Federal response is infeasible or inappropriate
(see 63 FR 13461).  Moreover, on October 4, 2006, the Agency issued a
final rule (see 71 FR 58525) that broadened the existing reporting
exemptions forto include releases that are the result of combustion of
less than 1,000 pounds of nitrogen oxide (NO) and less than 1,000 pounds
of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) to the air in 24 hours (“NOx ARE”).”)
that are the result of combustion.  The NO and NO2 exemptions were
granted for releases of hazardous substances at levels for which the CAA
regulates nitrogen oxides that are considerably higher than 10ten
pounds.  

EPA also disagrees that it is barred from basing its exemption on
evidence that a Federal response from the to a notification of a release
of hazardous substances to the air from animal waste releases is
unlikely. Rather, for this rule, EPA has made a determination that these
reports are unnecessary because they are , in most cases, a federal
response is impractical and unlikely (i.e., we would not respond to them
since there is no reasonable approach for the response).   We also
believe that because this administrative reporting exemption is narrowly
focused to the source (animal waste) and location (at farms) of the
hazardous substance emissions and because farms and animal waste are
easily identified, it is appropriate to base our rationale for this rule
on the unlikelihood and inappropriateness of a federal response.

Comments Indicating a Misunderstanding of the Proposed Rule 

ManyA number of the commenters seem to misunderstand what the Agency was
proposing.  For example, commenters expressed general opposition to
removing air quality and clean air standards; removing clean air
protections; reducing pollution or emission standards; exemptions to
clean air standards; allowing farms to emit more pollutants;
deregulation of hazardous emissions; and an exemption from the Clean Air
Act (CAA) and Clean Water Act (CWA).  This rule would do none of this. 
Rather, this rule addresses only the notification requirements under
CERCLA section 103 and in a limited manner, EPCRA section 304.  EPA
retains all other authorities under both CERCLA and EPCRA, and the CAA
and CWA standards also are unaffected by this action.

	

Comments Regarding Definitions 

In order to provide clarity with respect to the scope of the proposed
reporting exemption, the Agency proposed definitions for animal waste
and farm.  The definitions, as proposed, would be limited in application
to the regulations promulgated pursuant to CERCLA section 103
specifically 40 CFR 302.3 (definitions) and 40 CFR 355.61 (How are key
words in this part defined?).  We solicited comment on those
definitions.

Animal Waste 

Because the Agency does not have an existing definition for animal
waste, EPA proposed to add a definition for “animal waste” to the
Code of Federal Regulations.  The definition for “animal waste” in
the proposed rule was, “manure (feces, urine, other excrement, and
bedding, produced by livestock that has not been composted), digestive
emissions, and urea.  The definition includes animal waste when mixed or
commingled with bedding, compost, feed, soil and other materials
typically found with animal waste.”  We sought comment from the public
on the appropriateness, clarity and completeness of the definition.

In general, the public was generally supportive of our proposed
definition of “animal waste,” as long as it is understood that this
definition is used solely for the purposes of CERCLA and EPCRA
reporting; however, there were a few requests for further clarification.
 In particular, several commenters requested clarification regarding the
treatment of compost material, and specifically whether composted manure
is included in the definition of animal waste. Similarly, other
commenters suggested that EPA clarify that manure-based compost is
included in the definition of animal waste. We have clarified in the
discussion in section III.DC.i. (., above), that such composted manure
and manure-based compost is included in the definition of animal waste. 
Furthermore, we made a small change to the definition of animal waste to
help clarify this point.

Several other commenters submitted alternative definitions.  For
example, to reflect the need for controlling emissions of dangerous and
toxic emissions, a commenter suggested that animal waste be defined as
"manure (livestock produced feces, urine, other excrement, and bedding
that has not been composted), digestive emissions, and urea, which emit
dangerous and/or toxic gases in any quantity.  This definition includes
animal waste when mixed or commingled with bedding, compost, feed, soil
and other materials typically found in animal waste.”   Another
commenter suggested an alternate definition which would define animal
waste as "all constituents and byproducts of the decomposition of manure
(feces, urine, other excrement, and bedding, produced by livestock or
poultry that has not been composted), digestive emissions, and urea." 
This suggested definition would also include "animal waste when mixed or
commingled with water, bedding, compost, feed, soil and other materials
typically found with animal waste." Still another commenter suggested
the following definition for animals waste, "manure (feces, urine, or
other excrement produced by livestock, and including bedding), and any
other livestock digestive emissions, regardless of how stored, handled,
composted or otherwise stockpiled. The definition includes animal waste
used in biogas production or other treatment processes, or when mixed or
commingled with bedding, compost, feed, soil, and other materials
typically found with animal waste."

While the Agency appreciates the suggestions provided by the commenters,
we believe that the proposed definition of animal waste is broad enough
to serve the purpose of defining the source of hazardous substances
emitted from farms for this administrative reporting exemption, with the
one clarification noted above.  The definitions proposed by the
commenters do not offer additional clarity and in the case of “animal
waste used in biogas production or other treatment processes,” suggest
a broader use of manure that would extend to facilities other than
farms, and thus, beyond the scope of the final rule.  This broader use
of the term manure could also inadvertently cross into other
environmental statutes.

Farm 

EPA proposed a definition for “farm” by slightly modifying the
definition found in the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
Census of Agriculture, as well as included Federal and stateState
research farms that utilize farm animals subject to the conditions
experienced on other farms (e.g., poultry, swine, dairy, and livestock
research farms).  However, in the proposal, we incorrectly stated that
the proposed definition was used by USDA.  Thus, the proposed definition
for “farm” was “(a) any place whose operation is agricultural and
from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and
sold, or normally would have been sold, during the census year. 
Operations receiving $1,000 or more in Federal government payments are
counted as farms, even if they have no sales and otherwise lack the
potential to have $1,000 or more in sales; or, (b) a Federal or state
poultry, swine, dairy or livestock research farm.” The purpose of
specifying that Federal and stateState research farms that utilize farm
animals subject to the conditions experienced on other farms was to
respond to USDA concerns that Federal and State research farms were
included in the exemption.  The Agency sought comment on the proposed
definition, and whether an alternative definition may be more
appropriate.

Commenters generally expressed support for the definition of farm
because they understood it to be the definition used by USDA and because
it promotes continuityconsistency in definitions between agencies;
however, one commenter pointed out that the proposed definition is
inconsistent with the definition of farm used by EPA in its SPCC rule
(see 71 FR 77266, December 26, 2006) and therefore the Agency has two
differing definitions that could place a hardship on the regulated
community and gives the impression that the Agency is picking and
choosing definitions without considering the regulatory implications of
its decisions. The Agency agrees with this commenter and thus, EPA has
decided to use for this rule the same definition of “farm” as the
definition used in the SPCC rule for this rule. This definition is also
now the same definition found in the NASS Census of Agriculture. 
Although not specifically stated in the definition, this definition is
broad enough and includes Federal or stateState poultry, swine, dairy or
livestock research farms that were included in the proposed definition.

Another definition suggested by a commenter was to expand the definition
to include "[any] operation that produces eggs, poultry, swine, dairy,
or other livestock in any amount,” as well as all production areas and
land application areas.  Another commenter suggested that the definition
be expanded to include non-Federal or State research facilities.  EPA
disagrees with the commenters that suggested an expanded definition of
farm.  We believe that the definition in this rule encompasses the
universe of operations that the commenters are suggesting without adding
confusion to the regulated facilities, especially in light of the SPCC
regulations. 

Comments Regarding Other Facilities 

The Agency is aware that animal waste is also generated at other
facilities, such as zoos and circuses. Because the focus of the proposal
was on animal waste generated or found at farms, EPA did not propose to
expand the reporting exemption beyond such facilities. However, because
the potential for release to the air of hazardous substances from animal
waste at other such facilities may present the same issues that are
presented by animal waste at farms, we did specifically request comment
on whether the administrative reporting exemption should be expanded to
include other types of facilities that also generate animal waste, and
if so, what other types of facilities should be included in the
reporting exemption. 

There was general support by the commenters for including within the
exemption other types of facilities (besides farms) that produce animal
waste from the administrative reporting requirements.  Commenters . That
is, while commenters generally agreed that while the rule should stay
narrowly focused, they also argued that other types of facilities that
produce animal manure waste should also be included within the
exemption.  Several other commenters stated that because the generation
of manureanimal waste is a normal biological process, all animals'
manurewaste should be administratively excluded from the administrative
reporting exemption.  

EPA appreciates the commenters’ arguments that all animals’
manurewaste should be excluded; however, we have decided to limit the
final rule to animal waste generated or produced at farms, and not
include other types of facilities, because the Agency has not looked
sufficiently at these other types of facilities to determine the
likelihood that the Agency would take a response action, if there was
such a release to the air of hazardous substances that meet or exceed
their RQ from animal waste.  

Comments Regarding Possible Situations that Would Necessitate a Response

EPA specifically sought comment on whether there might be a situation
where a response would be triggered by such a notification of the
release of hazardous substances to the air that meet or exceeds the RQ
from animal waste at farms, and if so, what an appropriate response
would be to such notifications.  Several commenters responded that there
are no circumstances where a manure related release of emissions would
trigger an emergency response.  

On the other hand, there were some commenters that offered scenarios
that described the importance of receiving the notifications. 
Specifically, one commenter noted that extreme weather fluctuations and
various pit pumping techniques may cause emissions to exceed reportable
quantities.  Such fluctuations (e.g., differences in temperature,
rainfall frequency and intensity, wind speed, topography and soils)
could impact the amount of air emissions released from farms.  Another
commenter cited a 2004 study entitled, Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations: Health Risks from Air Pollution Institute for Agriculture
and Trade Policy, which noted that "when pits are agitated for pumping,
some or all of these gases are rapidly released from the manure and may
reach toxic levels or displace oxygen, increasing the risk to humans and
livestock.”  

With respect to emergency responses, one commenter stated that emergency
responses may be needed to protect children who live in nearby homes and
communities from elevated levels of airborne ammonia and/or the fine
particulates that result from the ammonia releases.  The commenter
suggests that adequate monitoring will provide facility operators with
sufficient warning to take remedial actions that will reduce ammonia
formation and release before regulatory thresholds are breechedexceeded.

Finally, one commenter stated that EPA has not examined such situations
that may arise when maintaining feeding operations and that the Agency
has not proven that emergency personnel would not benefit from
continuous release reports of hazardous substances from these operations
when attempting to save lives or prevent injury quickly in the future.

From a CERCLA section 104 response perspective, based on EPA’s
experience, the Agency would rarely, if ever, respond to such scenarios.
 In any event, we retain our response authorities and would assist State
and local officials in their response, if requested.  State or local
agencies (i.e., SERCs and LEPCs) also may require information for
emergency planning purposes under section 303(d) of EPCRA and make this
information available to the public under section 324 of EPCRA.    

Statutory and Regulatory Reviews 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)  

	Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a "significant regulatory action”  because it has been
determined that it raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of
legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set
forth in the Executive Order.  Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and
any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented
in the docket for this action.

	

Paperwork Reduction Act 

	This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
Rather, this final rule represents a reduction in burden for both
industry and the government by administratively exempting the reporting
requirement for releases of hazardous substances to the air that meet or
exceed their RQ from animal waste at farms from the CERCLA section 103
notification requirements and to a limited extent, the EPCRA section 304
emergency notification requirements. 

However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously
approved the information collection requirements contained in the
existing regulation 40 CFR 302 under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control
number 2050-0046, EPA ICR number 1049.11 for 40 CFR 302.6 (Episodic
releases of oil and hazardous substances), OMB control number 2050-0086,
EPA ICR number 1445.07 for 40 CFR 302.8 (Continuous release reporting
requirements) (pending approval) and OMB control number 2050-0092, EPA
ICR number 1395.06 for 40 CFR 355 (Emergency planning and notification).
The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40
CFR part 9.

We estimate that this final rule will reduce burden on farms associated
with the notification requirements under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA
section 304 by approximately 3,407,8581,290,000 hours over the ten year
period beginning in 2009 and associated costs by approximately
$155,312,94060,800,000 over the same period.  We estimate that this rule
will also reduce burden on the Federal government (including Federal,
State and local governments) for receipt and processing of the
notifications under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 by
approximately 152,505161,000 hours over the ten year period beginning in
2009 and associated costs by approximately $7,763,5968,110,000 over the
same period.  In evaluating the potential burden and cost savings to
those farms that would no longer be required to make notifications under
CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 and for the Federal government
entities that isare no longer required to receive and process such
notifications, we used the same universe as used in the 20032008 CAFO
Rule (see 6873 FR 7176, Feb 12, 2003).  [NOTE:  Update citation to
reflect70417, Nov. 20, 2008 CAFO rule when it goes final – expected
10/17/08]).  

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

		The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.  Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.

	For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities,
small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as defined by the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;  (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.

Under the statutory and regulatory analyses of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act for the proposed rule, we concluded that EPA expects the
net reporting and recordkeeping burden associated with reporting air
releases of hazardous substances that meet or exceed their RQ from
animal waste at farms under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 to
decrease. We stated that this reduction in burden will be realized by
businesses of all sizes.  Although we concluded that the rule will
relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities as the statute
requires, EPA requested comment on the potential impacts of the proposed
rule on small entities and on issues related to such impacts. 

One commenter explicitly concurred with EPA’s analysis and conclusion
that the proposed rule will provide relief from regulatory burden for
small entities, stating that:  “Small farms should not be affected
even if the reporting requirements stay in place because these farms do
not generally have a large enough herd of animals to reach the requisite
levels of toxins.” EPA appreciates the commenter’s perspective that
small farms would probably not be affected by the reporting
requirements, even if we did not issue this administrative reporting
exemption.  

	After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  This final
rule will not impose any additional requirements on small entities. 
Rather, this rulemaking will relieve regulatory burden because we are
eliminating the reporting requirement for releases of hazardous
substances to the air that meet or exceed their RQ from animal waste at
farms under the CERCLA section 103 notification requirements and for
those entities below the large CAFO threshold of animal species, as
defined under the NPDES program regulations, under the EPCRA section 304
notification requirements.  We expect the net reporting and
recordkeeping burden associated with reporting air releases of hazardous
substances from animal waste at farms under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA
section 304 to decrease.  This reduction in burden will be realized by
both small and large businesses.  We have therefore concluded that this
final rule will relieve regulatory burden for all affected small
entities.	

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, or 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. That is, the final
rule imposes no enforceable duty on any stateState, local or tribal
governments or the private sector; rather, this final rule will result
in burden reduction in the receipt of notifications under section 103 of
CERCLA and for those entities below the large CAFO threshold of animal
species, as defined under the NPDES program regulations, under section
304 of EPCRA notification requirements of the release to the air of
hazardous substances, primarily ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, that meet
or exceed their RQ from animal waste at farms.   

	Additionally, EPA has determined that this final rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This final rule reduces regulatory burden and the
private sector is not expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million. 
Thus, the final rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202
and 205 of UMRA.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

	Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (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  are 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 final 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.  There are no stateState and local
government bodies that incur direct compliance costs by this final rule.
 Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. 

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 rule does
not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal
governments, nor would it impose substantial direct compliance costs on
them. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. 	

	

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health
& Safety Risks)  

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 F.R. 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only
to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such
that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation.  This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended
to mitigate health or safety risks.

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 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. This final rule will reduce the burden associated with
the notification of releases to air of hazardous substances that meet or
exceed their RQ from animal waste at farms. 

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act  

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies.  NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

This action does not involved technical standards. Therefore, EPA did
not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) 

	Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federalFederal executive policy on environmental justice.  Its main
provision directs federalFederal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of
their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States.  

	EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect
the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.  As
discussed in the Background section of the preamble for this final rule,
the requirement to notify the government under CERCLA section 103 or
EPCRA section 304 does not require the notifying entity to take any
specific action to address the release.  Therefore, because EPA has
determined that a response action would be unlikely, EPA does not
believe that exempting these releases from CERCLA section 103
notification requirements or to a limited extent EPCRA section 304
emergency notification requirements will have a disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effect on minority or
low-income populations, especially since the Agency is not limiting any
of it its other authorities under CERCLA, such as CERCLA sections 104
(response authorities), 106 (abatement actions), 107 (liability), or any
other provisions of CERCLA or EPCRA.  The Agency also retains its
authority to apply existing statutory provisions in its efforts to
prevent minority and or low-income communities from being subject to
disproportionately high and adverse impacts and environmental effects. 
We therefore have determined that this final rule does not have a
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations. 

Congressional Review Act  

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the
rule in the Federal Register. A Majormajor rule cannot take effect until
60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is
not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be
effective [Insert date 30 days after it is publishedfrom date of
publication in the Federal Register].

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 302

	Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous
waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, 

Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 355

Air pollution control, Chemicals, Disaster assistance, Hazardous
substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural
resources, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

____________________________

Dated:

____________________________				

Stephen L. Johnson,						

Administrator.

 

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

	PART 302 -- DESIGNATION, REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND NOTIFICATION 

1.	The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as follows:

			AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, 9604; 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361.

		2.	Section 302.3 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the
definitions of “Animal waste” and “Farm” to read as follows:

	§ 302.3 Definitions.

		*               *		*	*	* 

Animal Waste as used in § 302 only, means manure (feces, urine, and
other excrement produced by livestock), digestive emissions, and urea. 
The definition includes animal waste when mixed or commingled with
bedding, compost, feed, soil and other typical materials found with
animal waste.

*	*	*	*	*	

Farm as used in § 302 only, means a facility on a tract of land devoted
to the production of crops or raising of animals, including fish, which
produced and sold, or normally would have produced and sold, $1,000 or
more of agricultural products during a year. 

*	*	*	*

		3.	Section 302.6 is amended by adding paragraph (e)(3) to read as
follows:

			§ 302.6 Notification requirements.

		*	*	*	*	*	

	*	*	*	*	*	

		(e) *	*	*

			(3) Releases to the air of any hazardous substance from animal waste
at farms.

		*              *               *              *              *

PART 355 -- EMERGENCY PLANNING AND NOTIFICATION

4.	The authority citation for part 355 continues to read as follows:

	AUTHORITY:  42 U.S.C. 11002, 11003, 11004, 11045, 11047, 11048 and
11049.

5.	Section 355.31 is amended by adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as
follows:

	§355.31 What types of releases are exempt from the emergency release
notification requirements of this subpart?

*	*	*	*	*

		(g)   Any release to the air of a hazardous substance from animal
waste at farms that stable or confine fewer than the numbers of animal
specified in any of the following categories.

700 mature dairy cows, whether milked or dry

1,000 veal calves

1,000 cattle other than mature dairy cows or veal calves.  Cattle
includes but is not limited to heifers, steers, bulls and cow/calf pairs

2,500 swine each weighing 55 pounds or more

10,000 swine each weighing less than 55 pounds

500 horses

10,000 sheep or lambs

55,000 turkeys

30,000 laying hens or broilers, if the farm uses a liquid manure
handling system

125,000 chickens (other than laying hens), if the farm uses other than 
liquid manure handling system

82,000 laying hens, if the farm uses other than a liquid manure handling
system

30,000 ducks (if the farm uses other than a liquid manure handling
system)

5,000 ducks (if the farm uses a liquid manure handling system)

(h) Any release to the air of a hazardous substance from animal waste at
farms from animals that are not stabled or otherwise confined.

 

*	*	*	*	*

6.	Section 355.61 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the
definitions of “Animal waste” and “Farm” to read as follows:

	§ 355.61 How are key words in this part defined?

*	*	*	*	* 

Animal Waste means manure (feces, urine, and other excrement produced by
livestock), digestive emissions, and urea.  The definition includes
animal waste when mixed or commingled with bedding, compost, feed, soil
and other typical materials found with animal waste.

*	*	*	*	*	

Farm means a facility on a tract of land devoted to the production of
crops or raising of animals, including fish, which produced and sold, or
normally would have produced and sold, $1,000 or more of agricultural
products during a year. 

Billing Code 6560-50-P

 On November 3, 2008, EPA published a final rule, “Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act; Amendments to Emergency Planning and
Notification; Emergency Release Notification and Hazardous Chemical
Reporting” (“EPCRA rule”).  (See 73 FR 65452.)  That rule included
revisions to the Emergency Planning Notification, Emergency Release
Notification and Hazardous Chemical Reporting regulations.  One of the 
revisions included reorganizing the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) so
that it follows a plain language format.  This final rule uses the CFR
citations of the EPCRA rule.

Subpart C – Emergency Release Notification includes regulations for,
“Who Must Comply” (355.30 – What facilities must comply with the
emergency release notification requirements, 355.31 – What types of
releases are exempt from the emergency release notification requirements
of this subpart?, 355.32 – Which emergency release notification
requirements apply to continuous releases?, and 355.33 - What release
quantities of EHSs and CERCLA hazardous substances trigger the emergency
release notification requirements of this subpart?)  “How to Comply”
(355.40 - What information must I provide?, 355.41 – In what format
should the information be submitted?, 355.42 – To Whom must I submit
the information?, and 355.43 – When must I submit the information?). 

 On October XX, 2008, EPA published a final rule, “Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act; Amendments to Emergency Planning and
Notification; Emergency Release Notification and Hazardous Chemical
Reporting” (“EPCRA rule”).  (See 73 FR XXXXX.)  That rule included
minor revisions to the Emergency Planning Notification, Emergency
Release Notification and Hazardous Chemical Reporting regulations.  One
of the minor revisions included reorganizing the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) so that it follows a plain language format.  This
final rule uses the CFR citations of the EPCRA rule.

 Comments that were submitted that specifically addressed the
administrative reporting exemption for the notification requirements
under section 304 of EPCRA will not be addressed in this preamble or in
the response to comments document as the Agency is still evaluating
these comments.  Those comments will be addressed if the Agency, in the
future, proceeds to finalize all or parts of the proposal dealing with
the notification requirements under section 304 of EPCRA.

 The docket for EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469 can be accessed through  
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov . 

 NASTTPO is made up of members and staff of SERCs, Tribal Emergency
Response Commissions (TERCs), LEPCs, various federal agencies, and
private industry.

 Animals that reside primarily outside of an enclosed structure (i.e., a
barn or a feed lot) and graze on pastures are not stabled or confined. 
Animals that are not stabled or confined at concentrated animal feeding
operations are not counted toward the threshold. Any emissions to the
air of hazardous substances from the waste of such animals while they
are not stabled or confined are not counted towards the calculation of a
reportable quantity at a farm that is above the threshold and subject to
reporting, unless such waste is consolidated into a storage unit.

 Subpart C – Emergency Release Notification includes regulations for,
“Who Must Comply” (355.30 – What facilities must comply with the
emergency release notification requirements, 355.31 – What types of
releases are exempt from the emergency release notification requirements
of this subpart?, 355.32 – Which emergency release notification
requirements apply to continuous releases?, and 355.33 - What release
quantities of EHSs and CERCLA hazardous substances trigger the emergency
release notification requirements of this subpart?) and  “How to
Comply” (355.40 - What information must I provide?, 355.41 – In what
format should the information be submitted?, 355.42 – To Whom must I
submit the information?, 355.43 – When must I submit the
information?). 

 The air monitoring consent agreement set out requirements and
obligations regarding reporting .  For those farms that executed the
consent agreement, those requirements and obligations are still in
effect and will end in accordance with the terms of the consent
agreement.  This rule has no effect on that agreement.

 The Agency also received 23 comment letters from stateState and/or
local emergency response agencies in response to the December 2005
Federal Register notice that acknowledged receipt of the rulemaking
petition from the National Chicken Council, the National Turkey
Federation, and the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association which also agreed
that such notifications were not necessary. 

 As noted previously, the Agency is not responding to those comments
that specifically addressed the administrative reporting exemption for
the notification requirements under section 304 of EPCRA.  They will be
addressed when the Agency makes a final decision on that aspect of the
December 2007 proposal.

 This study is available in the Superfund Docket at: 
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469-0531.8.

 This document is available on line at:   This document is available on
line at:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.healthobservatory.org/library.cfm?refID=37388" 
http://www.healthobservatory.org/library.cfm?refID=37388 ..

OMB Review

INTERNAL AGENCY USE ONLY **** DO NOT DISTRUBUTE OUTSIDE EPA, CITE, OR
QUOTE

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  4244 

Page   PAGE  2  of   NUMPAGES  4344 

 PAGE   

OMB Review

INTERNAL AGENCY USE ONLY **** DO NOT DISTRUBUTE OUTSIDE EPA, CITE, OR
QUOTE

Page Page   PAGE  44  of  of   NUMPAGES  4344 

OMB Review

INTERNAL AGENCY USE ONLY **** DO NOT DISTRUBUTE OUTSIDE EPA, CITE, OR
QUOTE