questionnaire had daily production levels of 50 tpd or less. Following
the completion of the baseline emissions and impacts analyses, EPA
conducted an economic impact analysis. As part of this analysis, EPA
collected detailed data from the 2002 Economic Census of Manufacturers
that broke down the

industry based on the number of employees. This information suggested
that the profile of the industry based on the industry questionnaire
responses may have been biased slightly toward larger facilities (i.e.,
a larger percentage of the industry would have average daily feed
production rates of 50 tpd or less than originally estimated).
Therefore, this new information was used, along with correlation
between production and revenues provided by a commenter, to reassess
this profile. The revised analyses assume that 29 percent of the
facilities in the industry have average daily feed production levels of
50 tpd or less.
    Number of Facilities Emitting Chromium. In the proposal analysis,
it was assumed that every facility in the industry added chromium-
containing nutrients to their products. However, in response to follow-
up questions asked by EPA on their public comments, the industry trade
organizations stated that: ``The use of chromium compounds among feed
manufacturers is not as prevalent as the use of manganese compounds.
Until a recent FDA-approval for use in dairy feeds earlier this year,
chromium compounds had been approved for use only in swine feeds. Only
about 2 to 3 percent of feed mills in the U.S. use a chromium compound,
and only two compounds, chromium proprionate and chromium
tripicolinate, are approved by FDA for use in swine feed.'' Based on
this information, the revised impacts analysis assumes that only 3
percent of the prepared feed manufacturing facilities in the United
States use and emit chromium.
    Facility Average Chromium and Manganese Emission Rates. Because the
national databases considered prior to proposal contained data for such
a limited number of prepared feed manufacturing facilities, a model
plant approach was used to estimate nationwide emissions and impacts
for the source category. This model plant approach used facility
average emission levels from the 2006 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
for chromium and manganese. The commenter criticized the development of
average emission rates from such a limited data set. To broaden the
data set, TRI data were obtained for every facility reporting NAICS
code 311119 and/or SIC 3048 for the years 1990 through 2007. There were
over 10,000 facilities reporting these NAICS/SIC codes over these 18
years, averaging just over 570 facilities per year. On average, there
were 134 facilities reporting manganese emissions each year and 2
reporting chromium. These data were used to calculate new facility
average manganese and chromium emission rates, which were used in the
revised analyses.
    Production Level To Calculate PM Emission Factor. In the proposal
analyses, the facility average PM emission rate from the 2002 NEI for
emission sources after the point in the process when chromium or
manganese would be added was divided by the average production rate
from the facilities that responded to the EPA questionnaire to obtain
an emission factor in units of tons per year PM emissions per tpd
production level. The commenter indicated that this average production
level used, 177 tpd, was not representative of the facilities in the
NEI. They ``conservatively estimated that the average production that
occurred at those facilities listed in the 2002 NEI exceeded 500 tpd.''
In the revised analysis, the PM emissions factor was calculated based
on the production level of 500 tpd provided by the commenter.
    Cyclone Efficiency for PM2.5. The impacts analysis for the proposed
rule assumed that cyclones would achieve a 95 percent reduction
efficiency for PM2.5. An efficiency chart provided by a
commenter shows cyclone efficiencies of approximately 30 percent for
PM2.5. This value was used in the revised analysis.
2. Summary of Revised Results
    The results of the revised impacts analysis showed a decrease in
the PM emissions and increases in the manganese, chromium, and
PM2.5 emissions. The revised emissions levels prior to the
implementation of this regulation are 8.2 tons per year of chromium,
195 tons per year of manganese, around 11,000 tons per year of both PM
and PM2.5.
    The revised analysis also shows higher levels of chromium and
manganese emission reductions and lower levels of both PM and
PM2.5 reductions. Since the costs were not impacted by the
changes to the analyses, the cost effectiveness of the controls were
lower for the chromium and manganese and higher for the PM and
PM2.5. Cost effectiveness values are discussed further in
the revised impacts memo which is in the docket. Based on the comments,
we did change the impacts, but none of these conclusions affect our
choice of GACT.

H. Title V Requirements

    Comment: Several commenters agreed with the proposed title V permit
exemption, noting such factors as the adequacy of existing state
programs to ensure compliance, the additional economic and other
burdens imposed by title V permitting, and the lack of technical
resources to comply with permitting requirements for facilities that
are mostly small businesses.
    Response: We acknowledge the commenters' support for the exemption
from title V permitting requirements in this rule.
    Comment: One commenter argued that the agency's proposal to exempt
the area source category from title V requirements is unlawful and
arbitrary. The commenter states that section 502(a) of the CAA
authorizes EPA to exempt area source categories from title V permitting
requirements if the Administrator finds that compliance with such
requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible or unnecessarily
burdensome.'' 42 U.S.C. 7661a(a). The commenter notes that EPA did not
claim that title V requirements are impracticable or infeasible for the
source category it proposes to exempt, but that EPA instead relied
entirely on its claim that title V would be ``unnecessarily
burdensome.''
    Response: Section 502(a) of the CAA states, in relevant part, that:

    * * * [t]he Administrator may, in the Administrator's discretion
and consistent with the applicable provisions of this chapter,
promulgate regulations to exempt one or more source categories (in
whole or in part) from the requirements of this subsection if the
Administrator finds that compliance with such requirements is
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on such
categories, except that the Administrator may not exempt any major
source from such regulations. See 42 U.S.C. section 7661a(a).

    The statute plainly vests the Administrator with discretion to
determine when it is appropriate to exempt non-major (i.e., area)
sources of air pollution from the requirements of title V. The
commenter correctly notes that EPA based the proposed exemptions solely
on a determination that title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' and
did not rely on whether the requirements of title V are
``impracticable'' or ``infeasible'', which are alternative bases for
exempting area sources from title V.
    To the extent the commenter is asserting that EPA must determine
that all three criteria in CAA section 502 are met before an area
source category can be exempted from title V, the commenter misreads
the statute. The statute expressly provides that EPA may exempt an area
source category from title V requirements if EPA determines that the
requirements are ``impracticable, infeasible or

unnecessarily burdensome.'' See CAA section 502 (emphasis added). If
Congress had wanted to require that all three criteria be met before a
category could be exempted from title V, it would have stated so by
using the word ``and,'' in place of ``or''.
    Comment: One commenter stated that, in order to demonstrate that
compliance with title V would be ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' EPA must
show, among other things, that the ``burden'' of compliance is
unnecessary. According to the commenter, by promulgating title V,
Congress indicated that it viewed the burden imposed by its
requirements as necessary as a general rule. The commenter maintained
that the title V requirements provide many benefits that Congress
viewed as necessary. Thus, in the commenter's view, EPA must show why,
for any given category, special circumstances make compliance
unnecessary. The commenter believed that EPA has not made that showing
for the category it proposes to exempt.
    Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter's characterization
of the demonstration required for determining that title V is
unnecessarily burdensome for an area source category. As stated above,
the CAA provides the Administrator discretion to exempt an area source
category from title V if he determines that compliance with title V
requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily
burdensome'' on an area source category. See CAA section 502(a). In
December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the term
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and developed a four-
factor balancing test for determining whether title V is unnecessarily
burdensome for a particular area source category, such that an
exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, December 19,
2005 (``Exemption Rule''). In addition to interpreting the term
``unnecessarily burdensome'' and developing the four-factor balancing
test in the Exemption Rule, EPA applied the test to certain area source
categories.
    The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for
determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome on a particular
area source category include: (1) Whether title V would result in
significant improvements to the compliance requirements, including
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area
source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V permitting would
impose significant burdens on the area source category and whether the
burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the sources may have in
obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 FR 75324); (3)
whether the costs of title V permitting for the area source category
would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in
compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); and (4)
whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that
are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP for the area source
category, without relying on title V permits (70 FR 75326).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether
compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily
burdensome on an area source category, we considered, consistent
with the guidance provided by the legislative history of section
502(a), whether exempting the area source category would adversely
affect public health, welfare or the environment. See 72 FR 15254-
15255, March 25, 2005. As discussed in the proposed rule and below,
after conducting the four-factor balancing test and determining that
title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome on the area
source categories at issue here, we examined whether the exemption
from title V would adversely affect public health, welfare and the
environment, and found that it would not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In discussing the above factors in the Exemption Rule, we explained
that we considered on ``a case-by-case basis the extent to which one or
more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for a given
source category, and then we assessed whether considered together those
factors demonstrated that compliance with title V requirements would be
`unnecessarily burdensome' on the category, consistent with section
502(a) of the Act.'' See 70 FR 75323. Thus, we concluded that not all
of the four factors must weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to
determine that title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a particular
area source category. Instead, the factors are to be considered in
combination and EPA determines whether the factors, taken together,
support an exemption from title V for a particular source category.
    The commenter asserts that ``EPA must show * * * that the
``burden'' of compliance is unnecessary.'' This is not, however, one of
the four factors that we developed in the Exemption Rule in
interpreting the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502,
but rather a new test that the commenter maintains EPA ``must'' meet in
determining what is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' under CAA section 502.
EPA did not re-open its interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' in CAA section 502 in the July 27, 2009 proposed rule for
the category at issue in this rule. Rather, we applied the four-factor
balancing test articulated in the Exemption Rule to the source category
for which we proposed title V exemption. Had we sought to re-open our
interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section
502 and modify it from what was articulated in the Exemption Rule, we
would have stated so in the July 27, 2009 proposed rule and solicited
comments on a revised interpretation, which we did not do. Accordingly,
we reject the commenter's attempt to create a new test for determining
what constitutes ``unnecessarily burdensome'' under CAA section 502, as
that issue falls outside the purview of this rulemaking.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ If the commenter objected to our interpretation of the term
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in the Exemption Rule, it should have
commented on, and challenged, that rule. Any challenge to the
Exemption Rule is now time barred by CAA section 307(b). Although we
received comments on the title V Exemption Rule during the
rulemaking process, no one sought judicial review of that rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, we believe that the commenter's position that ``EPA
must show * * * that the `burden' of compliance is unnecessary'' is
unreasonable and contrary to Congressional intent concerning the
applicability of title V to area sources. Congress intended to treat
area sources differently under title V, as it expressly authorized the
EPA Administrator to exempt such sources from the requirements of title
V at her discretion. There are several instances throughout the CAA
where Congress chose to treat major sources differently than non-major
sources, as it did in CAA section 502. Moreover, although the commenter
espouses a new interpretation of the term `unnecessarily burdensome' in
CAA section 502 and attempts to create a new test for determining
whether the requirements of title V are 'unnecessarily burdensome' for
an area source category, the commenter does not explain why EPA's
interpretation of the term `unnecessarily burdensome' is arbitrary,
capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law. We maintain that
our interpretation of the term `unnecessarily burdensome' in section
502, as set forth in the Exemption Rule, is reasonable.
    Comment: One commenter stated that exempting a source category from
title V permitting requirements deprives both the public generally and
individual members of the public who would obtain and use permitting
information from the benefit of citizen oversight and enforcement that
Congress plainly viewed as necessary. According to the commenter, the
text and legislative history of the CAA provide that Congress intended
ordinary citizens to be able to get emissions and compliance
information about air toxics sources and

to be able to use that information in enforcement actions and in public
policy decisions on a state and local level. The commenter stated that
Congress did not think that enforcement by states or other government
entities was enough; if it had, Congress would not have enacted the
citizen suit provisions, and the legislative history of the CAA would
not show that Congress viewed citizens' access to information and
ability to enforce CAA requirements as highly important both as an
individual right and as a crucial means to ensuring compliance.
According to the commenter, if a source does not have a title V permit,
it is difficult or impossible--depending on the laws, regulations and
practices of the state in which the source operates--for a member of
the public to obtain relevant information about its emissions and
compliance status. The commenter stated that, likewise, it is difficult
or impossible for citizens to bring enforcement actions. The commenter
continued that EPA does not claim--far less demonstrate with
substantial evidence--that citizens would have the same ability to
obtain compliance and emissions information about sources in the
category it proposes to exempt without title V permits. The commenter
also said that, likewise, EPA does not claim--far less demonstrate with
substantial evidence--that citizens would have the same enforcement
ability. Thus, according to the commenter, the exemption EPA proposes
plainly eliminates benefits that Congress thought necessary. The
commenter claimed that to, justify its exemption, EPA would have to
show that the informational and enforcement benefits that Congress
intended title V to confer--benefits which the commenter argues are
eliminated by the exemptions--are for some reason unnecessary with
respect to the category it proposes to exempt. The commenter concluded
that EPA does not even acknowledge these benefits of title V, far less
explain why they are unnecessary, and that for this reason alone, EPA's
proposed exemptions are unlawful and arbitrary.
    Response: Once again, the commenter attempts to create a new test
for determining whether the requirements of title V are ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' on an area source category. Specifically, the commenter
argues that EPA does not claim or demonstrate with substantial evidence
that citizens would have the same access to information and the same
ability to enforce under these NESHAP, absent title V. The commenter's
position represents a significant revision of the fourth factor that
EPA developed in the Exemption Rule in interpreting the term
``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502. For all of the reasons
explained above, the commenter's attempt to create a new test for EPA
to meet in determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome''
on an area source category cannot be sustained. Moreover, EPA's
interpretation of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section
502 is reasonable.
    EPA reasonably applied the four factors to the facts of the
category at issue in this rule, and the commenter has not identified
any flaw in EPA's application of the four factor test to the area
source category at issue here. Moreover, as explained in the proposal,
we considered implementation and enforcement issues in the fourth
factor of the four-factor balancing test. Specifically, the fourth
factor of EPA's unnecessarily burdensome analysis provides that EPA
will consider whether there are implementation and enforcement programs
in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP
without relying on title V permits. See 70 FR 75326.
    In applying the fourth factor here, EPA determined that there are
adequate enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the
CAA. As stated in the proposal, we believe that state-delegated
programs are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP and that
States must have adequate programs to enforce section 112 requirements
and provide assurances that they will enforce the NESHAP before EPA
will delegate the program. In addition, EPA retains authority to
enforce this NESHAP under the CAA. See 74 FR 36988. The commenter does
not challenge the conclusion that there are adequate state and Federal
programs in place to ensure compliance with and enforcement of the
NESHAP. Instead, the commenter provides an unsubstantiated assertion
that information about compliance by the area sources with this NESHAP
will not be as accessible to the public as information provided to a
State pursuant to title V. The commenter does not, however, provide any
information that States will treat information submitted under these
NESHAP differently than information submitted pursuant to a title V
permit.
    Even accepting the commenter's assertions that it is more difficult
for citizens to enforce the NESHAP absent a title V permit, which we
dispute, in evaluating the fourth factor in EPA's balancing test, EPA
concluded that there are adequate implementation and enforcement
programs in place to enforce the NESHAP. The commenter has provided no
information to the contrary or explained how the absence of title V
actually impairs the ability of citizens to enforce the provisions of
these NESHAP.
    Furthermore, the fourth factor is one factor that we evaluated in
determining if the title V requirements were unnecessarily burdensome.
As explained above, we considered that factor together with the other
factors and determined that it was appropriate to finalize the proposed
exemption at issue in this rule.
    Comment: One commenter explained that title V provides important
monitoring benefits, and, according to the commenter, EPA assumes that
title V monitoring would not add any monitoring requirements beyond
those required by the regulations for the category. The commenter said
that in its proposal EPA proposed to require ``continuous parameter
monitoring and periodic recording of the parameter for the required
control device to assure compliance. 74 FR at 36987.'' The commenter
further states that ``EPA argues that its proposed standard, by
including these requirements, provides monitoring `sufficient to assure
compliance' with the requirements of the proposed rule. Id.'' The
commenter maintains that EPA made conclusory assertions and that the
Agency failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that the proposed
monitoring requirements will assure compliance with the NESHAP for the
exempt sources. The commenter stated that, for this reason as well, its
claim that title V requirements are ``unnecessarily burdensome'' is
arbitrary and capricious, and its exemption is unlawful and arbitrary
and capricious.
    Response: As noted in the earlier comment, EPA used the four-factor
test to determine if title V requirements were unnecessarily
burdensome. In the first factor, EPA considers whether imposition of
title V requirements would result in significant improvements to the
compliance requirements that are proposed for the area source
categories. See 74 FR 36987. It is in the context of this first factor
that EPA evaluates the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of the proposed NESHAP to determine the extent to which
those requirements are consistent with the requirements of title V. See
70 FR 75323.
    The commenter asserts that ``EPA argues that its proposed standard,
by including these requirements, `provides monitoring sufficient to
assure

compliance with the proposed rule.' See Fed Reg. 74 At 36987.'' In the
proposal, we stated:
    The proposed rule requires direct monitoring of control device
parameters, recordkeeping that also may serve as monitoring, and
deviation and other annual reporting to assure compliance with the
requirements.
    The monitoring component of the first factor favors title V
exemption. For the management practices, this proposed standard
provides monitoring in the form of recordkeeping that would assure
compliance with the requirements of the proposed rule. Monitoring by
means other than recordkeeping for the management practices is not
practical or appropriate. Records are required to ensure that the
management practices are followed. The rule requires continuous
parameter monitoring and periodic recording of the parameter for the
required control device to assure compliance. The proposed rule
requires the owner or operator to record the date and results of
periodic control device inspections, as well as any actions taken in
response to findings of the inspections. See 74 FR 36987.
    As the above excerpt states, we required continuous parameter
monitoring and periodic records of the parameter for new and existing
affected sources when the rule requires the installation of such
controls. This monitoring is in addition to the recordkeeping that
serves as monitoring for the management practices. The commenter does
not provide any evidence that contradicts the conclusion that the
proposed monitoring requirements are sufficient to assure compliance
with the standards in the rule.
    Based on the foregoing, we considered whether title V monitoring
requirements would lead to significant improvements in the monitoring
requirements in the proposed NESHAP and determined that they would not.
We believe that the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in this area source rule can assure compliance.
    For the reasons described above and in the proposed rule, the first
factor supports exempting this area source category from title V
requirements. Assuming, for arguments sake, that the first factor alone
cannot support the exemption, the four-factor balancing test requires
EPA to examine the factors in combination and determine whether the
factors, viewed together, weigh in favor of exemption. See 74 FR 36987.
As explained above, we determined that the factors, weighed together,
support exemption of the area source categories from title V.
    Comment: One commenter believes that EPA cannot justify exempting
the source from title V by asserting that compliance with title V
requirements poses a ``significant burden.'' According to the
commenter, regardless of whether EPA regards the burden as
``significant,'' the Agency may not exempt a category from compliance
with title V requirements unless compliance is ``unnecessarily
burdensome.'' Or in the commenter's words, that ``the compliance burden
is especially great.'' The commenter stated that in any event, EPA's
claims about the alleged burden of compliance are entirely conclusory
and could be applied equally to any major or area source category;
therefore, the commenter claims that EPA has not justified why this
source category should be exempt from title V permitting as opposed to
any other category.
    Response: The commenter appears to take issue with the formulation
of the second factor of the four-factor balancing test. Specifically,
the commenter states that EPA must determine that title V compliance is
``unnecessarily burdensome'' and not a ``significant burden,'' as
expressed in the second factor of the four-factor balancing test.
    As we have stated before, we found the burden placed on the
prepared feed manufacturing area source category in complying with
title V requirements is unnecessarily burdensome when we applied the
four-factor balancing test. We did not re-open EPA's interpretation of
the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in this rule. As explained above,
we maintain that the Agency's interpretation of the term
``unnecessarily burdensome,'' as set forth in the Exemption Rule and
reiterated in the proposal to this rule, is reasonable.
    In applying the four-factor test, we properly analyzed the second
factor, i.e., will title V permitting impose a significant burden on
the area source, and will that burden be aggravated by any difficulty
that the source may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting
agency. See 74 FR 36988. EPA found that the sources would have a
significant burden because we estimated that the average cost of
obtaining and complying with a title V permit in general was $65,700
per source for a 5-year permit period. 74 FR 36988. In addition, EPA
found that most of the sources affected by this rule are small
businesses. Small businesses often lack the technical resources to
comply with the permitting requirements and the financial resources
needed to hire the necessary staff or outside consultants. EPA found
that not only is the individual cost of permitting significant for this
source category (i.e., $65,700) but also that the cost to this source
category with approximately 1,800 sources as a whole is significant.
Furthermore, given the number of affected sources in this source
category (i.e., approximately 1,800), it would likely be difficult for
them to obtain assistance from the permitting authorities. These
specific factors for the affected sources alone justify that EPA has
properly exempted the source category from title V. However, as
discussed in the proposal and above, EPA analyzed all of the four
factors in making its determination that these sources should be exempt
from title V permitting requirements; and we found that the totality of
these factors weighs heavily in favor of the exemption.
    Comment: According to one commenter, EPA argued that compliance
with title V would not yield any gains in compliance with underlying
requirements in the relevant NESHAP (74 FR 36988). The commenter stated
that EPA's conclusory claim could be made equally with respect to any
major or area source category. According to the commenter, the Agency
provides no specific reasons to believe that the additional
informational, monitoring, reporting, certification, and enforcement
requirements that exist in title V, but not in this NESHAP, would not
provide additional compliance benefits. The commenter also stated that
the only basis for EPA's claim is, apparently, its beliefs that those
additional requirements never confer additional compliance benefits.
According to the commenter, by advancing such argument, EPA merely
seeks to elevate its own policy judgment over Congress' decisions
reflected in the CAA's text and legislative history.
    Response: The commenter takes out of context certain statements in
the proposed rule concerning the factors used in the balancing test to
determine if imposition of title V permit requirements is unnecessarily
burdensome for the prepared feeds manufacturing area source category.
The commenter also mischaracterizes the first of the four-factor
balancing test with regard to determining whether imposition of title V
would result in significant improvements in compliance. In addition,
the commenter mischaracterizes the analysis in the third factor of the
balancing test which instructs EPA to take into account any gains in
compliance that would result from the imposition of the title V
requirements.

    First, EPA nowhere states, nor does it believe, that title V never
confers additional compliance benefits as the commenter asserts. While
EPA recognizes that requiring a title V permit offers additional
compliance options, the statute provides that EPA must assess whether
compliance with title V would be unnecessarily burdensome to the
specific area sources at issue. For the source category subject to this
rulemaking, EPA concluded that requiring title V permits would be
unnecessarily burdensome.
    Second, the commenter mischaracterizes the first factor by
asserting that EPA must demonstrate that title V will provide no
additional compliance benefits. The first factor calls for a
consideration of ``whether title V would result in significant
improvements to the compliance requirements, including monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area source
category.'' Thus, contrary to the commenter's assertion, the inquiry
under the first factor is not whether title V will provide any
compliance benefit, but rather whether it will provide significant
improvements in compliance requirements.
    The monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the
rule are sufficient to assure compliance with the requirements of this
rule, consistent with the goal of title V permitting. For example, in
the Initial Notification, the source must include information about the
facility and its operations. The source must also certify how it is
complying and that it has complied with the required management
practices and associated recordkeeping requirements. The source must
further certify that it has installed controls, if necessary to meet
the final standards and that it is monitoring the controls, as required
by the final rule and keeping all necessary records regarding the
inspections of the controls and any corrective actions taken as a
result of seeing changes in the operation of the control equipment. See
section 63.11624 in the final rule. The source must also keep records
and conduct inspections to document that it is complying with the
management practices finalized in this rule. See section 63.11624 in
the final rule. The source must monitor and demonstrate cyclone
performance efficiency and, if applicable, must begin corrective action
and record the specifics about the corrective action upon seeing any
deviation in the pressure drop or fan amperage in the control
equipment. The source must also submit deviation reports to the
permitting agency in the annual report if there has been a deviation in
the requirements of the rule. See section 63.11624 in the final rule.
EPA believes that these requirements in the rule itself provide
sufficient basis to assure compliance with the final emission
standards, and does not believe that the title V requirements, if
applicable to these sources, would offer significant improvements in
the compliance of the sources with the rule.
    Third, the commenter incorrectly characterizes our statements in
the proposed rule concerning our application of the third factor. Under
the third factor, EPA evaluates ``whether the costs of title V
permitting for the area source category would be justified, taking into
consideration any potential gains in compliance likely to occur for
such sources.'' Contrary to what the commenter alleges, EPA did not
state in the proposed rule that compliance with title V would not yield
any gains in compliance with the underlying requirements in the
relevant NESHAP, nor does factor three require such a determination.
Instead, consistent with the third factor, we considered whether the
costs of title V are justified in light of any potential gains in
compliance. In other words, EPA must view the costs of title V
permitting requirements, considering any improvement in compliance
above what the rule requires. EPA reviewed the area source category at
issue and determined that the vast majority of the approximately 1,800
sources that would be subject to the rule currently do not have a title
V permit. As stated in the proposal, EPA estimated that the average
cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit was $65,700 per
source for a 5-year permit period, including fees. See Information
Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, 72 FR
32290, June 12, 2007, EPA ICR Number 1587.07. Based on this
information, EPA determined that there is a significant cost burden to
the industry to require title V permitting for all the sources subject
to the rule. In addition, in analyzing factor one, EPA found that
imposition of the title V requirements offers no significant
improvements in compliance. In considering the third factor, we stated
in part that, ``Because the costs of compliance with title V are so
high, and the potential for gains in compliance is low, title V
permitting is not justified for this source category. Accordingly, the
third factor supports the proposed title V exemptions for this area
source category.'' See 74 FR 36988. Most importantly, EPA considered
all four factors in the balancing test in determining whether title V
was unnecessarily burdensome on the prepared feeds manufacturing area
source category. EPA found it reasonable after considering all four
factors to exempt this source category from the permitting requirements
in title V. Because the commenter's statements do not demonstrate a
flaw in EPA's application of the four-factor balancing test to the
specific facts of the source category at issue here, the comments
provide no basis for the Agency to reconsider its proposal to exempt
this area source category from title V.
    Comment: According to one commenter, ``[t]he agency does not
identify any aspect of any of the underlying NESHAP showing that with
respect to these specific NESHAP--unlike all the other major and area
source NESHAP it has issued without title V exemptions--title V
compliance is unnecessary.'' Instead, according to the commenter, EPA
merely pointed to existing State requirements and the potential for
actions by States and EPA that are generally applicable to all
categories (along with some small business and voluntary programs). The
commenter said that, absent a showing by EPA that distinguishes the
sources it proposes to exempt from other sources, however, the Agency's
argument boils down to the claim that it generally views title V
requirements as unnecessary. The commenter stated that, while this may
be EPA's view, it was not Congress' view when Congress enacted title V,
and a general view that title V is unnecessary does not suffice to show
that title V compliance is unnecessarily burdensome.
    Response: The commenter again takes issue with the Agency's test
for determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome, as
developed in the Exemption Rule. Our interpretation of the term
``unnecessarily burdensome'' is not the subject of this rulemaking. In
any event, as explained above, we believe the Agency's interpretation
of the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' is a reasonable one. To the
extent the commenter asserts that our application of the fourth factor
is flawed, we disagree. The fourth factor involves a determination as
to whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place
that are sufficient to assure compliance with the rule without relying
on the title V permits. In discussing the fourth factor in the
proposal, EPA states that prior to delegating implementation and
enforcement to a State, EPA must ensure that the State has programs in
place to enforce the rule. EPA believes that these programs will be
sufficient to assure

compliance with the rule. EPA also retains authority to enforce this
NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. EPA also noted
other factors in the proposal that together are sufficient to assure
compliance with this area source.
    The commenter argues that EPA cannot exempt this area source
category from title V permitting requirements because ``[t]he agency
does not identify any aspect of any of the underlying NESHAP showing
that with respect to these specific NESHAP--unlike all the other major
and area source NESHAP it has issued without title V exemptions--title
V compliance is unnecessary'' (emphasis added). As an initial matter,
EPA cannot exempt major sources from title V permitting. 42 U.S.C.
502(a). As for area sources, the standard that the commenter proposes--
that EPA must show that ``title V compliance is unnecessary''--is not
consistent with the standard the Agency established in the Exemption
Rule and applied in the proposed rule in determining if title V
requirements are unnecessarily burdensome for the source category at
issue.
    Furthermore, we disagree that the basis for excluding the area
source prepared feeds manufacturing category from title V requirements
is generally applicable to any source category. As explained in the
proposal preamble and above, we balanced the four factors considering
the facts and circumstances of the source category at issue in this
rule. For example, in assessing whether the costs of requiring the
sources to obtain a title V permit was burdensome, we concluded that
because the vast majority of the sources did not have a title V permit,
the costs imposed on the source category were significant compared to
the additional compliance benefits offered by the title V permitting
process.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the legislative history of the
CAA shows that Congress did not intend EPA to exempt source categories
from compliance with title V unless doing so would not adversely affect
public health, welfare, or the environment. See 74 FR 36988.
Nonetheless, according to the commenter, EPA does not make any showing
that its exemption would not have adverse impacts on health, welfare
and the environment. The commenter stated that, instead, EPA offered
only the conclusory assertion that ``the level of control would remain
the same'' whether title V permits are required or not 74 FR 36988-89.
The commenter continued by stating that EPA relied entirely on the
conclusory arguments advanced elsewhere in its proposal that compliance
with title V would not yield additional compliance with the underlying
NESHAP. The commenter stated that those arguments are wrong for the
reasons given above, and therefore EPA's claims about public health,
welfare and the environment are wrong too. The commenter also stated
that Congress enacted title V for a reason: To assure compliance with
all applicable requirements and to empower citizens to get information
and enforce the CAA. The commenter said that those benefits--of which
EPA's proposed rule deprives the public--would improve compliance with
the underlying standards and thus have benefits for public health,
welfare and the environment. According to the commenter, EPA has not
demonstrated that these benefits are unnecessary with respect to any
specific source category, but again simply rests on its own apparent
belief that they are never necessary. The commenter concluded that, for
the reasons given above, the attempt to substitute EPA's judgment for
Congress' is unlawful and arbitrary.
    Response: Congress gave the Administrator the authority to exempt
area sources from compliance with title V if, in his or her discretion,
the Administrator ``finds that compliance with [title V] is
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome.'' See CAA
section 502(a). EPA has interpreted one of the three justifications for
exempting area sources, ``unnecessarily burdensome'', as requiring
consideration of the four factors discussed above. EPA applied these
four factors to the area source category subject to this rule and
concluded that requiring title V for this area source category would be
unnecessarily burdensome. In addition to determining that title V would
be unnecessarily burdensome on the prepared feed manufacturing area
source category, EPA also considered whether exempting the area source
category would adversely affect public health, welfare or the
environment. As explained in the proposal preamble, we concluded that
exempting the area source category at issue in this rule would not
adversely affect public health, welfare or the environment because the
level of control would be the same even if title V applied. We further
explained in the proposal preamble that the title V permit program does
not generally impose new substantive air quality control requirements
on sources, but instead requires that certain procedural measures be
followed, particularly with respect to determining compliance with
applicable requirements. The commenter has not provided any information
that exemption of this area source category from title V will adversely
affect public health, welfare or the environment.

VI. Impacts of the Final Standards

    We project that the baseline PM emissions from the estimated 1,800
facilities in the prepared feeds source category are approximately
11,000 tons/yr, with approximatley 11,000 tons/yr of PM2.5,
195 tons/yr of manganese and just over 8 tons/yr of chromium. We
believe that management practices are already being implemented
throughout the industry. Therefore, we do not expect any additional
reductions in chromium compound, manganese compound, or general PM
emissions from these measures. We estimate that the requirement to
install cyclones on the pelleting processes at the facilities with
average daily feed production levels exceeding 50 tpd will result in
emission reductions of around 1,100 tons/yr of PM, 100 tons/yr of
PM2.5, and approximately 20 tons/yr of manganese and
chromium emissions. While cyclones do remove PM from the air stream,
these solids are typically recycled back to the process. Therefore, we
do not anticipate any significant indirect or secondary air impacts of
this rule as proposed. In addition, we do not expect any non-air
health, environmental, or energy impacts.
    As noted above, we believe all prepared feed manufacturing
facilities already implement the proposed management practices.
Therefore, there will be no additional costs for these measures. We
estimate that the nationwide capital costs for the installation of
cyclones on the pelleting cooling operations at the large facilities
will be around $2.5 million. The associated annual costs are estimated
to be just over $3 million/year.
    Many of the plants in this analysis have fewer than 500 employees,
which is the threshold to be considered ``small'' by the Small Business
Administration. It is currently estimated that under 2 percent of the
facilities (26 facilities) in the category would potentially need to
install new cyclones under the proposed regulatory alternative. The
potential impact on the industry as a percentage of the value of
shipments is small. Under the proposed regulatory alternative, the
largest potential impact is estimated as 0.96 percent of shipments for
a subset of firms with an overall impact of 0.94 percent of shipments
for the industry as a whole. As a result, this action is not expected
to have a significant impact on

a substantial number of small entities or the economy as a whole,
regardless of whether or not the firms in the industry are able to pass
along any increases in their costs to the consumers.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms
of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) because it may
raise novel legal or policy issues and is, therefore, subject to review
under the Executive Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to
OMB for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for
this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this final rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document
prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2354.02.
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this final rule are
based on the requirements in EPA's NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in
the General Provisions are mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the CAA
(42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other than emissions data submitted
to EPA pursuant to the information collection requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to CAA
section 114(c) and the Agency's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part
2, subpart B.
    This NESHAP requires Prepared Feeds Manufacturing area sources to
submit an Initial Notification and a Notification of Compliance Status
according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the General Provisions
(subpart A). The annual burden for this information collection averaged
over the first three years of this ICR is estimated to be a total of
27,000 labor hours per year at a cost of $1.7 million or approximately
$980 per facility.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that meets
the Small Business Administration size standards for small businesses
found at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is
a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is
estimated to impact a total of almost 1,800 area source prepared feeds
manufacturing facilities. We estimate that all these facilities may be
small entities. We have determined that small entity compliance costs,
as assessed by the facilities' cost-to-sales ratio, are expected to be
less than 0.004 percent for the estimated 26 facilities that would not
initially be in compliance. Although this final rule contains
requirements for new area sources, we are not aware of any new area
sources being constructed now or planned in the next three years, and
consequently, we did not estimate any impacts for new sources.
    Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce such impact. The standards represent practices and
controls that are common throughout the prepared feeds manufacturing
industry. The standards also require only the essential recordkeeping
and reporting needed to demonstrate and verify compliance. These
standards were developed in consultation with small business
representatives on the State and national level and the trade
associations that represent small businesses.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result
in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any one
year. This rule is not expected to impact State, local, or Tribal
governments. The nationwide annualized cost of this rule for affected
industrial sources is around $3 million/yr. Thus, this rule would not
be subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
    This final rule would also not be subject to the requirements of
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The rule
would not apply to such governments and would impose no obligations
upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule does not impose any
requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this final rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This final rule
imposes no requirements on Tribal governments; thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to EO 13045 because it is based solely on technology
performance.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined
in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this
rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects. Existing energy
requirements for this industry would not be significantly impacted by
the additional controls or other equipment that may be required by this
rule.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the Agency
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards. However, we identified no such standards, and none
were brought to our attention in comments. Therefore, EPA has decided
to use technical standard Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A in the
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area
Sources: Prepared Feeds Manufacturing--40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDD.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule would not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This rule establishes national standards for the
Prepared Feeds Manufacturing area source category; this will reduce HAP
emissions, therefore decreasing the amount of emissions to which all
affected populations are exposed.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this final
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule will be effective on January 5, 2010.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 16, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart DDDDDDD to read as follows:
Subpart DDDDDDD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area Sources: Prepared Feeds Manufacturing

Applicability and Compliance Dates

Sec.
63.11619 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11620 What are my compliance dates?

Standards, Monitoring, and Compliance Requirements

63.11621 What are the standards for new and existing prepared feeds
manufacturing facilities?
63.11622 What are the monitoring requirements for new and existing
sources?
63.11623 What are the testing requirements?
63.11624 What are the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements?

Other Requirements and Information

63.11625 What parts of the General Provisions apply to my facility?
63.11626 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.11627 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11628--63.11638 [Reserved]

Tables to Subpart DDDDDDD of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart DDDDDDD of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Prepared Feeds Manufacturing Area Sources

Subpart DDDDDDD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area Sources: Prepared Feeds Manufacturing

Applicability and Compliance Dates

Sec.  63.11619  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a
prepared feeds manufacturing facility that uses a material containing
chromium or a material containing manganese and is an area source of
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP).
    (b) The provisions of this subpart apply to each new and existing
prepared feeds manufacturing affected source. A prepared feeds
manufacturing affected source is the collection of all equipment and
activities necessary to produce animal feed from the point in the
process where a material containing chromium or a material containing
manganese is added, to the point where the finished animal feed product
leaves the facility. This includes, but is not limited to, areas where
materials containing chromium and manganese are stored, areas where
materials

containing chromium and manganese are temporarily stored prior to
addition to the feed at the mixer, mixing and grinding processes,
pelleting and pellet cooling processes, packing and bagging processes,
crumblers and screens, bulk loading operations, and all conveyors and
other equipment that transfer the feed materials throughout the
manufacturing facility.
    (1) A prepared feeds manufacturing affected source is existing if
you commenced construction or reconstruction of the facility on or
before July 27, 2009.
    (2) A prepared feeds manufacturing affected source is new if you
commenced construction or reconstruction of the facility after July 27,
2009.
    (3) A collection of equipment and activities necessary to produce
animal feed at a prepared feeds manufacturing facility becomes an
affected source when you commence using a material containing chromium
or a material containing manganese.
    (c) An affected source is no longer subject to this subpart if the
facility stops using materials containing chromium or manganese.
    (d) This subpart does not apply to the facilities identified in
paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Prepared feeds manufacturing facilities that do not add any
materials containing chromium or manganese to any product manufactured
at the facility.
    (2) Research or laboratory facilities as defined in section
112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
    (e) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required
by law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3.
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with
the provisions of this subpart.

Sec.  63.11620  What are my compliance dates?

    (a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart by no
later than January 5, 2012.
    (b) If you own or operate a new affected source, you must achieve
compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart by January 5,
2010, or upon startup of your affected source, whichever is later.
    (c) If you own or operate a facility that becomes an affected
source in accordance with Sec.  63.11619 after the applicable
compliance date in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, you must
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart by
the date that you commence using a material containing manganese or a
material containing chromium.
    (d) If the average daily feed production level exceeds 50 tons per
day for a calendar year for a facility not complying with the
requirement in Sec.  63.11621(e) to install and operate a cyclone to
control emissions from pelleting operations, you must comply with Sec.
63.11621(e) and all associated requirements by July 1 of the year
following the one-year period.

Standards, Monitoring, and Compliance Requirements

Sec.  63.11621  What are the standards for new and existing prepared
feed manufacturing facilities?

    You must comply with the management practices and standards in
paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section at all times.
    (a) In all areas of the affected source where materials containing
chromium or manganese are stored, used, or handled, you must comply
with the management practices in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this
section.
    (1) You must perform housekeeping measures to minimize excess dust.
These measures must include, but not be limited to, the practices
specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) You must use either an industrial vacuum system or manual
sweeping to reduce the amount of dust;
    (ii) At least once per month, you must remove dust from walls,
ledges, and equipment using low pressure air or by other means, and
then sweep or vacuum the area;
    (iii) You must keep doors shut except during normal ingress and
egress.
    (2) You must maintain and operate all process equipment in
accordance with manufacturer's specifications and in a manner to
minimize dust creation.
    (b) You must store any raw materials containing chromium or
manganese in closed containers.
    (c) The mixer where materials containing chromium or manganese are
added must be covered at all times when mixing is occurring, except
when the materials are being added to the mixer. Materials containing
chromium or manganese must be added to the mixer in a manner that
minimizes emissions.
    (d) For the bulk loading process where prepared feed products
containing chromium or manganese are loaded into trucks or railcars,
you must use a device at the loadout end of each bulk loader to lessen
fugitive emissions by reducing the distance between the loading arm and
the truck or railcar.
    (e) For the pelleting operations at prepared feeds manufacturing
facilities with an average daily feed production level exceeding 50
tons per day, you must capture emissions and route them to a cyclone
designed to reduce emissions of particulate matter by 95 percent or
greater. You must also comply with the provisions in paragraphs (e)(1)
through (3) of this section.
    (1) You must demonstrate that the cyclone is designed to reduce
emissions of particulate matter by 95 percent or greater using one of
the methods specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
    (i) Manufacturer specifications;
    (ii) Certification by a professional engineer or responsible
official; or
    (iii) A performance test conducted in accordance with Sec.
63.11623 of this section.
    (2) You must establish an inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure
drop, or fan amperage range that represents proper operation of the
cyclone in accordance with the applicable requirement in paragraphs
(e)(2)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section.
    (i) If you demonstrate the cyclone design efficiency using
manufacturer specifications in accordance with paragraph (e)(1)(i) of
this section, the inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or
fan amperage range that represents proper operation of the cyclone must
be provided by the manufacturer.
    (ii) If you demonstrate the cyclone design efficiency using
certification by a professional engineer or responsible official in
accordance with paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section, this
certification must include calculations to establish an inlet flow
rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage range that
represents proper operation of the cyclone.
    (iii) If you demonstrate the cyclone design efficiency using a
performance test in accordance with paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this
section, you must monitor the inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure
drop, or fan amperage during the test and establish a range that
represents proper operation of the cyclone based on the data obtained
during the test.
    (3) You must maintain and operate the cyclone in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications. If manufacturer's specifications are not
available, you must develop and follow standard maintenance and
operating

procedures that ensure proper operation of the cyclone.

Sec.  63.11622  What are the monitoring requirements for new and
existing sources?

    (a) If you own or operate an affected source required by Sec.
63.11621(d) to use a device at the loadout end of a bulk loader that
reduces fugitive emissions from a bulk loading process, you must
perform monthly inspections of each device to ensure it is in proper
working condition. You must record the results of these inspections in
accordance with Sec.  63.11624(c)(4) of this subpart.
    (b) If you own or operate an affected source required by Sec.
63.11621(e) to install and operate a cyclone to control emissions from
pelleting operations, you must comply with the inspection and
monitoring requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) You must perform quarterly inspections of the cyclone for
corrosion, erosion, or any other damage that could result in air in-
leakage, and record the results in accordance with Sec.
63.11624(c)(5)(ii).
    (2) You must monitor inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure
drop, or fan amperage at least once per day when the pelleting process
is in operation. You must also record the inlet flow rate, inlet
velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage in accordance with Sec.
63.11624(c)(5)(iii).

Sec.  63.11623  What are the testing requirements?

    (a) If you are demonstrating that the cyclone required by Sec.
63.11621(e) is designed to reduce emissions of particulate matter by 95
percent or greater by the performance test option in Sec.
63.11621(e)(1)(iii), you must conduct a test in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this section and calculate the percent reduction in
accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) You must use Method 5 in Appendix A to part 60 to determine the
particulate matter mass rate at the inlet and outlet of the cyclone.
You must conduct at least three runs at the cyclone inlet and three
runs at the cyclone outlet. Each run must have a sampling time of at
least 60 minutes and a sample volume of at least 0.85 dscm (30 dscf).
    (c) You must calculate the percent particulate matter reduction
using Equation 1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA10.004

Where:

PM RED = particulate matter reduction, percent;
MINLET = Mass of particulate matter at the inlet of the
cyclone, dry basis, corrected to standard conditions, g/min;
MOUTLET = Mass of particulate matter at the outlet of the
cyclone, dry basis, corrected to standard conditions, g/min;

Sec.  63.11624  What are the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements?

    (a) Notifications. You must submit the notifications identified in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Initial Notification. If you are the owner of an affected
source you must submit an Initial Notification no later than May 5,
2010, or 120 days after you become subject to this subpart, whichever
is later. The Initial Notification must include the information
specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) The name, address, phone number and e-mail address of the owner
and operator;
    (ii) The address (physical location) of the affected source;
    (iii) An identification of the relevant standard (i.e., this
subpart); and
    (iv) A brief description of the operation.
    (2) Notification of Compliance Status. If you are the owner of an
existing affected source, you must submit a Notification of Compliance
Status in accordance with Sec.  63.9(h) of the General Provisions on or
before May 4, 2012. If you are the owner or operator of a new affected
source, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status within 120
days of initial startup, or by May 4, 2012, whichever is later. If you
own or operate an affected source that becomes an affected source in
accordance with Sec.  63.11619(b)(3) after the applicable compliance
date in Sec.  63.11620 (a) or (b), you must submit a Notification of
Compliance Status within 120 days of the date that you commence using
materials containing manganese or chromium. This Notification of
Compliance Status must include the information specified in paragraphs
(a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Your company's name and address;
    (ii) A statement by a responsible official with that official's
name, title, phone number, e-mail address and signature, certifying the
truth, accuracy, and completeness of the notification and a statement
of whether the source has complied with all the relevant standards and
other requirements of this subpart;
    (iii) If you own or operate an affected source required by Sec.
63.11621(e) to install and operate a cyclone to control emissions from
pelleting operations, the inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure
drop, or fan amperage range that constitutes proper operation of the
cyclone determined in accordance with Sec.  63.11621(e)(2).
    (iv) If you own or operate an affected source that is not subject
to the requirement in Sec.  63.11621(e) to install and operate a
cyclone to control emissions from pelleting operations because your
initial average daily feed production level was 50 tpd or less,
documentation of your initial daily pelleting production level
determination.
    (b) Annual compliance certification report. You must, by March 1 of
each year, prepare an annual compliance certification report for the
previous calendar year containing the information specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this section.
    (1) Your company's name and address.
    (2) A statement by a responsible official with that official's
name, title, phone number, e-mail address and signature, certifying the
truth, accuracy, and completeness of the notification and a statement
of whether the source has complied with all the relevant standards and
other requirements of this subpart.
    (3) If the source is not in compliance, include a description of
deviations from the applicable requirements, the time periods during
which the deviations occurred, and the corrective actions taken.
    (4) Identification of all instances when the daily inlet flow rate,
inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage is outside range that
constitutes proper operation of the cyclone submitted as part of your
Notification of Compliance Status. In these instances, include the time
periods when this occurred and the corrective actions taken.
    (5) If you own or operate an affected source that is not subject to
the requirement in Sec.  63.11621(e) to install

and operate a cyclone to control emissions from pelleting operations
because your average daily feed production level was 50 tpd or less,
notification if your average daily feed production level for the
previous year exceeded 50 tpd.
    (6) If you own or operate an affected source that was subject to
the requirement in Sec.  63.11621(e) to install and operate a cyclone
to control emissions from pelleting operations, notification if your
average daily feed production level for the previous year was 50 tpd or
less and that you are no longer complying with Sec.  63.11621(e).
    (c) Records. You must maintain the records specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (5) of this section in accordance with paragraphs (c)(6)
through (8) of this section.
    (1) As required in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv), you must keep a copy of
each notification that you submitted to comply with this subpart in
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, and all documentation
supporting any Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance
Status that you submitted.
    (2) You must keep a copy of each Annual Compliance Certification
prepared in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section.
    (3) For each device used to comply with the requirements in Sec.
63.11621(d), you must keep the records of all inspections including the
information identified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
    (i) The date, place, and time of each inspection;
    (ii) Person performing the inspection;
    (iii) Results of the inspection, including the date, time, and
duration of the corrective action period from the time the inspection
indicated a problem to the time of the indication that the device was
replaced or restored to operation.
    (4) For each cyclone used to comply with the requirements in Sec.
63.11621(e), you must keep the records in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through
(v) of this section.
    (i) If you demonstrate that the cyclone is designed to reduce
emission of particulate matter by 95 percent or greater by
manufacturer's specifications in accordance with Sec.
63.11621(e)(1(i), you must keep the records specified in paragraphs
(c)(4)(i)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) Information from the manufacturer regarding the design
efficiency of the cyclone,
    (B) The inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan
amperage range that represents proper operation of the cyclone,
    (C) The operation and maintenance procedures to ensure proper
operation of the cyclone.
    (ii) If you demonstrate that the cyclone is designed to reduce
emissions of particulate matter by 95 percent or greater by
certification by a professional engineer in accordance with paragraph
Sec.  63.11621(e)(1)(ii), you must keep the records specified in
paragraphs (c)(4)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) Certification regarding the design efficiency of the cyclone,
along with supporting information,
    (B) The inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan
amperage range that represents proper operation of the cyclone,
    (C) The standard maintenance and operating procedures that ensure
proper operation of the cyclone.
    (iii) If you demonstrate that the cyclone is designed to reduce
emissions of particulate matter by 95 percent or greater by a
performance in accordance with paragraph Sec.  63.11621(e)(1)(iii), you
must keep the records specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through
(C) of this section.
    (A) Results of the testing conducted in accordance with Sec.
63.11623,
    (B) The inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan
amperage range that represents proper operation of the cyclone,
    (C) The standard maintenance and operating procedures that ensure
proper operation of the cyclone.
    (iv) Records of all quarterly inspections including the information
identified in paragraphs (c)(4)(iv)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) The date, place, and time of each inspection;
    (B) Person performing the inspection;
    (C) Results of the inspection, including the date, time, and
duration of the corrective action period from the time the inspection
indicated a problem to the time of the indication that the cyclone was
restored to proper operation.
    (v) Records of the daily inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure
drop, or fan amperage measurements, along with the date, time, and
duration of the correction action period from the time the monitoring
indicated a problem to the time of the indication that the cyclone was
restored to proper operation.
    (5) If you own or operate an affected source that is not subject to
the requirement in Sec.  63.11621(e) to install and operate a cyclone
to control emissions from pelleting operations because your average
daily feed production level is 50 tpd or less, feed production records
to enable the determination of the average daily feed production level.
    (6) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review, according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1).
    (7) As specified in Sec.  63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record
for 5 years following the date of each recorded action.
    (8) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the
date of each recorded action according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1). You may
keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
    (d) If you no longer use materials that contain manganese or
chromium after January 5, 2010, you must submit a Notification in
accordance with Sec.  63.11619(c) which includes the information
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Your company's name and address;
    (2) A statement by a responsible official indicating that the
facility no longer uses materials that contain chromium or manganese.
This statement should also include an effective date for the
termination of use of materials that contain chromium or manganese, and
the responsible official's name, title, phone number, e-mail address
and signature.

Other Requirements and Information

Sec.  63.11625  What parts of the General Provisions apply to my
facility?

    Table 1 of this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.

Sec.  63.11626  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by EPA or a
delegated authority such as your State, local, or Tribal agency. If the
EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or
Tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and
enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office to
find out if implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated
to your State, local, or Tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or Tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section
are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the
State, local, or Tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or
Tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this
section.
    (1) Approval of an alternative nonopacity emissions standard under
Sec.  63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of an alternative opacity emissions standard under
Sec.  63.6(h)(9).
    (3) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A ``major change to test method'' is defined in
Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec.  63.8(f). A
``major change to monitoring'' is defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (5) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec.  63.10(f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is
defined in Sec.  63.90.

Sec.  63.11627  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA, in Sec.  63.2,
and in this section.
    Animal feed includes: Dehydrated alfalfa meal; alfalfa prepared as
feed for animals; cubed alfalfa; prepared animal feed; chopped,
crushed, or ground barley feed; prepared bird feed; blended animal
feed; bone meal prepared as feed for animals and fowls; cattle feeds,
supplements, concentrates, and premixes; prepared chicken feeds; cattle
feed citrus pulp; complete livestock feed; custom milled animal feed;
dairy cattle feeds supplements, concentrates, and premixes; earthworm
food and bedding; animal feed concentrates; animal feed premixes;
animal feed supplements; prepared animal feeds; specialty animal (e.g.,
guinea pig, mice, mink) feeds; fish food for feeding fish; custom
ground grains for animal feed; cubed hay; kelp meal and pellets animal
feed; laboratory animal feed; livestock feeds, supplements,
concentrates and premixes; alfalfa meal; bone meal prepared as feed for
animals and fowls; livestock micro and macro premixes; mineral feed
supplements; animal mineral supplements; pet food; poultry feeds,
supplements, and concentrates; rabbit food; shell crushed and ground
animal feed; swine feed; swine feed supplements, concentrates, and
premixes; and prepared turkey feeds. Feed products produced for dogs
and cats are not considered animal feed for the purposes of this
subpart.
    Average daily feed production level means the average amount of
animal feed products produced each day over an annual period. The
initial determination of the average daily feed production level is
based on the one-year period prior to the compliance date for existing
sources, or the design rate for new sources. The subsequent average
daily feed production levels are determined annually and are based on
the amount of animal feed products produced in a calendar year divided
by the number of days in which the production processes were in
operation.
    Cyclone means a mechanically aided collector that uses inertia to
separate particulate matter from the gas stream as it spirals through
the cyclone.
    Material containing chromium means a material that contains
chromium (Cr, atomic number 24) in amounts greater than or equal to 0.1
percent by weight.
    Material containing manganese means a material that contains
manganese (Mn, atomic number 25) in amounts greater than or equal to
1.0 percent by weight.
    Pelleting operations means all operations that make pelleted animal
feed, including but not limited to, steam conditioning, die-casting,
drying, cooling, and crumbling, and granulation.
    Prepared feeds manufacturing facility means a facility that is
primarily engaged in manufacturing animal feed. A facility is primarily
engaged in manufacturing animal feed if the production of animal feed
comprises greater than 50 percent of the total production of the
facility on an annual basis. Facilities primarily engaged in raising or
feeding animals are not prepared feed manufacturing facilities.
Facilities engaged in the growing of agricultural crops that are used
in the manufacturing of feed are not considered prepared feeds
manufacturing facilities.

Sec.  63.11628-63.11638  [Reserved]

Tables to Subpart DDDDDDD of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart DDDDDDD of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Prepared Feeds Manufacturing Area Sources

    As required in Sec.  63.11619, you must meet each requirement in
the following table that applies to you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Applies to Subpart
          Citation                   Subject              DDDDDDD?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1........................  Applicability.......  Yes.
63.2........................  Definitions.........  Yes.
63.3........................  Units and             Yes.
                               Abbreviations.
63.4........................  Prohibited            Yes.
                               Activities and
                               Circumvention.
63.5........................  Preconstruction       No.
                               Review and
                               Notification
                               Requirements.
63.6(a),(b)(1)-(b)(5),        Compliance with       Yes.
 (b)(7), (c), (f)(2)-(3),      Standards and
 (g), (i), and (j).            Maintenance
                               Requirements.
63.6(e)(1), (e)(3), (f)(1),   Startup, shutdown,    No. Standards apply
 and (h).                      and malfunction       at all times,
                               requirements and      including during
                               opacity/visible       startup, shutdown,
                               emission standards.   and malfunction
                                                     events.
63.7........................  Performance Testing   Yes.
                               Requirements.
63.8........................  Monitoring            Yes.
                               Requirements.
63.9(a), (b), (c), (d), (h),  Notification          Yes.
 (i), and (j).                 Requirements.
63.9(e), (f), (g)...........  ....................  No.
63.10(a),(b)(1), (b)(2)(i)-   Recordkeeping and     Yes.
 (iii), (b)(2)(vi)-(xiv),      Reporting
 (c), (d)(1), (e), and (f).    Requirements.
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v), (b)(3),  Recordkeeping and     No.
 and (d)(2)-(5).               Reporting
                               Requirements.
63.11.......................  Control Device        No.
                               Requirements.

63.12.......................  State Authorities     Yes.
                               and Delegations.
63.13.......................  Addresses...........  Yes.
63.14.......................  Incorporations by     Yes.
                               Reference.
63.15.......................  Availability of       Yes.
                               Information and
                               Confidentiality.
63.16.......................  Performance Track     Yes.
                               Provisions.
63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)-(9),       Reserved............  No.
 (b)(2), (c)(3)-(4), (d),
 63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4),
 (d), (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii),
 (h)(3), (h)(5)(iv),
 63.8(a)(3), 63.9(b)(3),
 (h)(4), 63.10(c)(2)-(4),
 (c)(9).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY                 NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY                              2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD                            ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

									          	OFFICE OF 										AIR AND RADIATION

December 29, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Meeting with Aluminum Association

FROM:	Angela Cullen, Mechanical Engineer

TO:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

This memorandum documents a meeting held on Friday, December 17, 2010 between the Aluminum Association, EPA, and DOT.  The attendees included:              Aluminum Association: Brian Tucker, Randall Scheps, and Doug Richman       EPA: Byron Bunker, Cle Jackson, Cheryl Bynum, and Angela Cullen        DOT: Maurice Hicks, Ryan Harrington, Lixin Zhao

The discussion focused primarily on lightweighting opportunities in heavy duty vehicles.