EO12866_Response2CommentsonAir Emissions from Animal Waste at Farms EPCRA 304(a)(2) Interpretation_2050-AH00_Final_RTC_20190508.docx

                         Response to Comment Document

           Amendment to Emergency Release Notification Regulations
      on Reporting Exemption for Air Emissions from Animal Waste at Farms
              Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

                        Docket # EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318

                                40 CFR Part 355

                                May ----, 2019

                     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
                    Office of Land and Emergency Management
                        Office of Emergency Management

                               TABLE OF CONTENTS

Response to Comments for Amendment to Emergency Release Notification Regulations on Reporting Exemption for Air Emissions from Animal Waste at Farms; Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

                                                                        			Page

Introduction..........................................................................................	       3

 Proposal to add the Reporting Exemption for Air Emissions from
Animal Waste at Farms to EPCRA section 304 Emergency Release
Notification Regulations...................................................................        4

 Proposal to add the definitions of "Animal Waste" and "Farm" to EPCRA Regulations in 40 CFR part 355.........................................................        6

 Legal Rationale for the Proposed Rule.................................................        7

 Statutory Text
 Legislative History and Prior Agency Actions
 Decision in Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA and related Rulemaking

 Other Comments on the Proposed Rule................................................     16

 Health and Environmental Impacts
 Environmental Justice Considerations
 National Environmental Policy Act & Endangered Species Act
 Economic Considerations
 Availability of Information
 Request for Public Comment Period Extension & Public Hearings
 Reporting Burden and Farm Size
 Reporting Liability
 Animal Cruelty

Appendix A.............................................................................................   27

                                 Introduction

Purpose of this Document

On November 14, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice of proposed rulemaking titled "Emergency Release Notification Regulations on Reporting Exemption for Air Emissions from Animal Waste at Farms; Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act" (83 FR 56791).  The public comment period closed on December 14, 2018.

The Agency decided to finalize the action as proposed.  The final rule amends section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) emergency release notification regulations to add the reporting exemption for air emissions from animal waste at farms provided in section 103(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).  In addition, the proposed definitions of "animal waste" and "farm" are added to the EPCRA regulations as provided in CERCLA section 103(e). The final rule maintains consistency between the emergency release notification requirements of EPCRA and CERCLA in accordance with the statutory text, framework and legislative history of EPCRA, and is consistent with Agency's prior regulatory actions.

The purpose of this document is to summarize public comments received on the proposed rule.
To develop this response to comment document, the Agency reviewed each submission made to public docket number EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318.  Submissions to this public docket for this rulemaking appear in their entirety is available at http://www.regulations.gov.  We organized the relevant comments according to the Agency's specific requests for public comment in the proposed rule and other topics in the proposed rule (83 FR 56791, November 14, 2018).

We also received comments that addressed issues outside the scope of the proposed rule. While EPA appreciates these comments, we responded to them to the extent they are relevant to the rulemaking.

Appendix A of this document comprises the list of commenters and the docket number assigned to each.

EPA received 87,473 comments, of which 380 comments are individual letters.  The remaining comments are part of mass mail campaigns. To better organize the Agency's responses to significant comments, and to assist the reader, EPA categorized the comments into sections based on the issues raised. This support document, however, should be read as a whole as there will inevitably be some overlap among these issues and EPA's responses. Specific comments that may be cited are to be considered representative of the voluminous comments the Agency received on the varying issues. EPA reviewed all comments submitted to the docket for this rulemaking.

                        COMMENT SUMMARY & RESPONSE

 Proposal to add Reporting Exemption for Air Emissions from Animal Waste at Farms to EPCRA section 304 Emergency Release Notification Regulations

The Agency proposed to amend the emergency release notification regulations under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) to exempt the reporting of air emissions from animal waste at farms consistent with section 103(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).

Supporting Comments

Several commenters (National Association of SARA Title III Program Officials; Private citizens; Agricultural trade associations; West Virginia and North Dakota State Departments of Agriculture; Farm bureaus) expressed general support for the proposed amendment to the EPCRA section 304 release reporting regulations to add the reporting exemption for air emissions from animal waste at farms provided in CERCLA section 103(e).  Commenters stated that the proposed rule lays out the proper reading of the law and is consistent with Congress' clear intent that EPCRA section 304 and CERCLA release reporting requirements be applied consistently except in certain very limited circumstances. Some of the commenters stated that EPCRA was never intended to govern agricultural operations, where emissions from livestock are a part of everyday life and are certainly not emergency situations. The natural breakdown of livestock manure does not constitute an emergency release pursuant to the CERCLA and EPCRA laws. One commenter stated that EPCRA was created to protect citizens from disasters such as 1984 Bhopal tragedy, however, animal agriculture cannot be compared to or included in a similar category designed to address toxic chemicals, hazardous substances and chemical emergencies.

Response

The EPA acknowledges the commenters' support for amending the EPCRA section 304 release notification regulations to add the reporting exemption for air emissions from animal waste at farms provided in CERCLA section 103(e). Issues raised by the commenters are further discussed below in this support document.

Opposing Comments
The Agency received numerous mass mail campaigns (public, citizen & environmental groups) opposing the proposed amendment to add the reporting exemption to the EPCRA section 304 emergency release notification regulations for air emissions from animal waste at farms.  Many commenters strongly urge the EPA to withdraw its proposed rule, which commenters said would exempt concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) from EPCRA reporting requirements so that reports of hazardous releases will be available to the public. Certain members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee strongly urges EPA to withdraw this proposed rule and faithfully execute and enforce EPCRA and CERCLA reporting requirements consistent with the laws passed by Congress.
In addition, EPA also received individual comment letters opposing the proposed amendment.  One commenter stated that it is the job of the EPA to regulate sources of hazardous emissions and protect the population from known sources of these emissions. One commenter asked EPA not to ignore and vacate their right-to-know by exempting the CAFO's responsibility to control and report the toxic emissions they are required to control and report. Another commenter stated that the solution to pollution is not to exempt the polluter and ignore the environmental damage and harm to human health. The automobile, power plant, and municipal landfill regulations progressed as those sources of pollution got larger and more common. The same approach must be done for the growing industrial animal factories.
Commenters also said EPA has a statutory obligation to do everything possible to keep the ambient air as pure as possible. Reporting emissions from animal agriculture is an important and necessary tool. Removing that tool would show flagrant disregard for the EPA mission and for the health of people who trust our government to act responsibly. Do not remove reporting of emissions from animal agriculture from EPCRA.
Response

While EPA recognizes commenters' concerns regarding animal waste emissions, the amendment is based on the statutory language in EPCRA section 304 and its relationship to CERCLA section 103 release reporting requirements.

The basic purpose of emergency release notification requirements under EPCRA section 304 is for facilities to inform state and local agencies of accidental releases so that these agencies can exercise the local emergency response plan if necessary. This may include, but is not limited to, providing shelter or evacuating the community to prevent acute exposure from accidental releases of chemicals. There is no provision under EPCRA section 304 to regulate or reduce emissions to air, water or land. Other programs at EPA carry out these functions.

Furthermore, in the Agency's experience, it is unlikely a response action will be taken for these types of emissions. As indicated by correspondence to EPA from the National Association of SARA Title III Program Officials (NASTTPO), dated June 1, 2017, release reports for air emissions from animal waste at farms provide little value to local agencies and first responders, and are generally ignored. NASTTPO states that open dialogue and coordination among farms and local agencies can be more effective than release reporting to address animal waste management at farms. NASTTPO reiterated this principle in its comment to this rulemaking dated December 14, 2018. In addition, regardless of reporting, EPA can still enforce applicable laws and regulations to address threats to human health and the environment. This rulemaking does not limit the Agency's authority under CERCLA sections 104 (response authorities), 106 (abatement actions), 107 (liability), or any other provisions of CERCLA to address releases of hazardous substances at farms.

Issues raised by the commenters are further discussed below in this support document.

 Proposal to add definitions of "Animal waste" and "Farm" to EPCRA regulations in 40 CFR part 355

EPA requested comments on adding the definitions of "animal waste" and "farm" to the definition section of EPCRA regulations in 40 CFR part 355 to delineate the scope of the reporting exemption for air emissions from animal waste at farms.  EPA received 17 adverse comments and 8 comments to support adding the definition of the terms "animal waste" and "farm" to EPCRA regulations.

Supporting Comments

Commenters generally support adding definitions of "animal waste" and "farm" to the EPCRA regulations to delineate the scope of this reporting exemption.  A few commenters expressed that the incorporation of the FARM Act's definitions of "animal waste" and "farm" into the EPCRA regulations provides important regulatory clarity to agricultural producers.  In their comments, NASTTPO expressed that EPA has crafted a narrow and specific exemption from the reporting of releases from animal waste from farms. They support the definitions and the resulting exemption from release reporting.

Response

EPA recognizes commenters' general support for adding the definitions of "animal waste" and "farm" to EPCRA regulations in 40 CFR part 355.

Opposing Comments

Many commenters as part of mass mail campaigns as well as few individual commenters opposed adding the definitions of "animal waste" and "farm" to the EPCRA regulations in 40 CFR part 355.  One of the commenters specifically stated that limiting definitions of what constitutes a farm, or animal waste merely hides problems and that we should be striving for more transparency on issues concerning emissions that affect climate and public health, not trying to limit transparency.  Another commenter stated that it is only the large CAFOs that can release sufficient volumes of toxic pollutants, as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide into the air which obviously will then end up in our soil and water.

Response

In March 2018, the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method (FARM) Act of 2018 amended CERCLA section 103 to exempt the reporting of air emissions from animal waste at a farm. See Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act, Pub. L. 115-141 §§ 1101-1103 (2018). The FARM Act includes definitions for "animal waste" and "farm." On August 1, 2018, EPA promulgated a final rule to incorporate the FARM Act legislation into the CERCLA reporting regulations at 40 CFR part 302 (see 83 FR 37446), including definitions for "animal waste" and "farm." This rule is based on EPA's interpretation of EPCRA section 304(a)(2) and its relationship to CERCLA section 103 as amended by the FARM Act. Due to this relationship between CERCLA section 103 and EPA's interpretation of EPCRA section 304(a)(2), the Agency believes it is reasonable to promulgate the same definitions for "animal waste" and "farm" into the EPCRA release reporting regulations to maintain consistency between the statutes and to effectuate the exemption under EPCRA.

III. Legal Rationale for the Proposed Rule
EPA received comments both supporting and opposing the legal rationale for the proposed rule. Below is a summary of significant comments received, and EPA's responses. To assist the reader with reviewing the comments and responses, EPA is providing a summary of its rationale for the proposed rule below. For a full discussion of the proposed rule and its rationale, the reader is directed to the Federal Register notice for this rulemaking. See 83 FR 56791 (November 14, 2018).
Summary of EPA's Legal Rationale for the Proposed Rule
CERCLA and EPCRA are two separate but interrelated environmental statutes that work together to provide emergency release notifications to Federal, state and local officials. CERCLA section 103 requires the person in charge of a vessel or facility to immediately notify the National Response Center (NRC) when there is a release of a hazardous substance, as defined under CERCLA section 101(14), in an amount equal to or greater than the reportable quantity for that substance within a 24-hour period. EPCRA section 304 governs when owners or operators of certain facilities need to immediately notify the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) and the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) when there is a release of an extremely hazardous substance (EHS), as defined under EPCRA section 302, or of a CERCLA hazardous substance in an amount equal to or greater than the reportable quantity for that substance within a 24-hour period. Generally speaking, release notifications go to federal authorities under CERCLA, while release notifications go to state and local authorities under EPCRA.
EPCRA sections 304(a)(1)-(3) provide for release reporting under three scenarios, each of which depend in some way on whether the release requires notice under CERCLA. If a release requires notice under CERCLA section 103(a), the release may be subject to EPCRA section 304 reporting if the release meets the requirements of EPCRA section 304(a)(1) or 304(a)(3). Importantly for this rulemaking, a release of an EPCRA EHS that is not subject to notification under CERCLA section 103(a) need only be reported if the release meets all three criteria in EPCRA section 304(a)(2):
 The release is not a federally permitted release as defined in CERCLA section 101(10),
 The release is in an amount in excess of the reportable quantity as determined by EPA, and
 The release occurs in a manner that would require notification under CERCLA section 103(a).
When Congress passed the FARM Act it exempted air emissions from animal waste at farms from reporting under CERCLA section 103(a). Thus, these types of releases do not fall within the reporting scenarios of EPCRA sections 304(a)(1) or (a)(3). Instead, reporting for these types of releases would be required under EPCRA section 304(a)(2) but only if all three criteria listed above are met. Air emissions from animal waste at farms could meet the first two criteria because such releases are generally not federally permitted and may exceed the applicable reportable quantity. A release of this type or manner (i.e., an emission into the air), however, does not "occurs in a manner" that would require notification under CERCLA section 103(a) after passage of the FARM Act. Accordingly, the three criteria are not met, and reporting is not required under EPCRA section 304(a)(2).
As discussed in the Federal Register notice for the proposed rule, EPA's interpretation concerning this type of release  -  air emissions from animal waste at farms  -  is supported by the legislative history of EPCRA and prior regulatory actions by EPA.
Supporting Comments
Commenters stated that EPA has the authority to amend the EPCRA emergency release notification regulations to include the reporting exemption for air emissions from animal waste at farms provided in CERCLA section 103(e). Commenters state that Congress intended for EPCRA reporting requirements to be consistent with or "linked to" CERCLA reporting requirements, which is evinced by the statutory language in EPCRA section 304(a)(2). The operative language in EPCRA section 304(a)(2) would require reporting if the release "occurred in a manner" which would require reporting under CERCLA. Since air emissions from animal waste at farms are exempt from CERCLA reporting under CERCLA section 103(e), as enacted by the FARM act, no reporting would be required under EPCRA pursuant to EPCRA section 304(a)(2).
Commenters stated that the EPCRA reporting mandates are parallel with or "piggybacked" on to the CERCLA reporting mandates is supported by the D.C. Circuit opinion in Waterkeeper Alliance, et al. v. EPA, 853 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. 2017), the legislative history of EPCRA and CERCLA section 103(e) as amended by the FARM Act, and prior agency action aligning EPCRA reporting with CERCLA reporting. Commenters note that an analysis prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) at the request of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) supports EPA's interpretation as presented in the proposed rule. In sum, commenters state the proposed rule is a sound and lawful codification based on the statutory language in EPCRA and CERCLA.
Response
EPA acknowledges the comments in support of the rule. EPA agrees it has reasonably interpreted EPCRA and CERCLA to promulgate the reporting exemption for air emissions from animal waste at farms. Further discussion of the Waterkeeper case, the legislative history, including the CRS analysis, and prior agency action is included below in EPA's response to the opposing comments. EPA acknowledges there may be several ways to draft the rule, but the Agency believes the proposed language appropriately carries out the intended effect of exempting air emissions from animal waste at farms from release reporting under EPCRA.
Opposing Comments
EPA received comments with a wide range of arguments opposing the Agency's legal rationale for the proposed rule. For the purposes of presentation, EPA has categorized the arguments below, followed by the Agency's response to each. This section on opposing comments, however, should be read as a whole as there will be some overlap among the arguments. As indicated in the Introduction to this support document, specific comments that are identified in this section are representative of the many comments the Agency received. EPA reviewed all comments.
A. Statutory Text
Commenters argue the proposed rule is in direct contravention of the plain language of EPCRA and CERCLA and is therefore "fundamentally flawed" and "illegal."
In enacting the FARM Act, the Senate EPW requested an analysis from the CRS of the potential effects of the FARM Act's amendments to CERCLA on EPCRA release reporting. The CRS issued two memorandums in March 2018 addressing the FARM Act (the memorandums are cited by several commenters). The first memorandum, entitled "Fair Agricultural Method Act/FARM Act (S. 2421)," dated March 7, 2018, provided an overview of CERCLA and EPCRA release reporting, statutory exemptions, the 2008 CERCLA/EPCRA rule and resulting litigation in the Waterkeeper case, EPA guidance on "routine agricultural operations," and the FARM Act. The March 7, 2018 memorandum states that if the FARM Act exempts the reporting of air releases of hazardous substances emitted by animal waste at farms, the FARM Act would have the effect of exempting the same releases of hazardous substances from reporting under EPCRA sections 304(a)(1) and (a)(3); reporting is required under both of these provisions contingent upon CERCLA reporting. The memorandum's analysis, however, also states that the FARM's Act CERCLA exemption may not necessarily apply to extremely hazardous substances covered under EPCRA section 304(a)(2), and also notes that any potential applicability of EPCRA to releases from animal waste may depend on EPA's guidance concerning "routine agricultural operations." The CRS memorandum also notes that the phrase "occurs in a manner" in EPCRA section 304(a)(2) has been implemented over time to mean the nature of the release in terms of how a substance enters the environment. Commenters supporting EPA's interpretation point to such language in the CRS analysis as evidence supporting the legality of the proposed rule.
To elaborate on its initial analysis, the CRS issued a second memorandum, entitled "Supplemental Analysis: Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act/FARM Act (S. 2421)," dated March 13, 2018. In that memorandum, the CRS explains that "occurs in a manner" means the nature of the release in terms of how a substance enters the environment; not that reporting is required under CERCLA section 103. The CRS argues that the release is not contingent on actual CERCLA reporting. As stated in the letter from certain Senate EPW members:
      In other words, as CRS explains, if an extremely hazardous substance (as defined by EPCRA), is emitted in excess of the reportable quantity, and is released into the environment in a manner which would generally trigger reporting (as those terms are defined in CERCLA), then reporting is required under EPCRA 304(a)(2), even though reporting is not required under CERCLA. There is no condition-precedent that a substance first be reported under CERCLA in order to trigger the reporting requirements that exist under EPCRA 304(a)(2). [Senate EPW comment page 6].
Other commenters also cite to the CRS analysis to argue that EPA's interpretation in the proposed rule is erroneous. Earthjustice expresses its support for CRS's analysis and provides additional comments to elaborate on the proper interpretation of EPCRA section 304(a)(2). Earthjustice argues that the "occurs in a manner" language makes it clear that even if a release is not reported under CERCLA, EPCRA reporting would still be required if the "factual" circumstances of the release would otherwise require CERCLA reporting. Earthjustice states:
      It makes clear that even if a release need not be reported under CERCLA, that release must still be reported under EPCRA if the factual circumstances of the release would otherwise require CERCLA reporting.
Earthjustice offers a few examples to posit that if the release factually qualifies as release into the environment under CERCLA, then reporting could still be triggered under EPCRA even if the release does not require reporting under CERCLA as a matter of law.
Earthjustice provides additional comments asserting that EPA wrongly interpreted the operative language in EPCRA section 304(a)(2) as "occurs in a manner which does require notification," instead of properly interpreting it as "occurs in a manner which would require notification." Earthjustice describes this difference as the subjunctive mood vs. the indicative mood. Congress' use of the term "would" in EPCRA section 304(a)(2) indicates the statute should be interpreted in a hypothetical or counterfactual scenario (i.e., subjunctive), rather than as a statement of fact (i.e., indicative):
      Thus, Congress's use of the term "would" has meaning  -  it plainly describes a situation in which CERCLA reporting is not required, but would be required but for some factual predicate or operation of law that excludes it from CERCLA's reporting requirements. It must mean something other than occurs in a manner that does require reporting under CERCLA. [EJ comment page 24].
Earthjustice cites several cases in general support of its theory on subjunctive statutory construction, and further argues that EPA's interpretation conflicts with EPCRA sections 304(a)(1) and 304(a)(3) and impermissibly results in an EPCRA exemption for any extremely hazardous substance whenever there is no parallel CERCLA reporting requirement. Relatedly, certain members of the Senate EPW assert that the interpretation in the proposed rule leads to illogical results:
      Under EPA's proposed interpretation of the FARM Act, if instead of limiting the CERCLA exemption to emissions into the air, Congress had instead carved out a broader exemption for reporting requirements under CERCLA and exempted releases into all environmental media, then the EPCRA reporting requirements under Section 304(a)(2) (into the air or any other media) would apply. In other words, EPA is arguing that a more expansive reporting exemption under CERCLA would require more extensive reporting under EPCRA. This is an illogical and unreasonable interpretation of the statute. [Senate EPW comment page 8].
Earthjustice also asserts that EPA arbitrarily based its interpretation of "occurs in a manner" on the method or type of release (i.e., into the air) rather than on the substance emitted. Earthjustice argues the statute provides no support for such an interpretation.
The Center for Biological Diversity states that EPA's interpretation is manifestly contrary to EPCRA:
      [T]he plain language of EPCRA is unambiguous in that it prohibits EPA from exempting animal feeding operations from EPCRA's reporting requirements. But even if there was some ambiguity in the statute, the Proposed Rule is arbitrary and capricious because EPA has not provided a reasoned explanation to justify its departure from the statute or supported that explanation with substantive record evidence. [CBD comment page 13].
Response
EPA's interpretation in the proposed rule is lawful and based on the plain language of EPCRA and CERCLA. EPA reasonably interpreted the operative language in EPCRA section 304(a)(2) as requiring EPCRA reporting when the release "occurs in a manner" which would require notification under CERCLA section 103(a). Because air emissions from animal waste at farms do not "occur in a manner" that would require notification under CERCLA section 103(a), such releases are not reportable under EPCRA section 304(a)(2).
EPA disagrees with the analysis of the CRS, as advanced by the letter from certain Senate EPW members, Earthjustice and other commenters, that reporting of these types of air emissions would still be required under EPCRA so long as they are factually releases under CERCLA. EPA understands these comments to propose that the "occurs in a manner" language in EPCRA section 304(a)(2) means that a release only has to satisfy the definition of a "release" under CERCLA to be eligible for EPCRA reporting. Such a reading is unnecessary as the definition of a "release" in EPCRA already mirrors the definition of a "release" in CERCLA. EPCRA section 329(8) defines "release" as:
       ...any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment (including the abandonment or discarding of barrels, containers, and other closed receptacles) of any hazardous chemical, extremely hazardous substance, or toxic chemical.
Similarly, CERCLA section 101(22) defines "release," in part, as:
      ...any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment (including the abandonment or discarding of barrels, containers, and other closed receptacles containing any hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant)...
While the CERCLA definition may focus more on hazardous substances and the EPCRA definition focusses more on extremely hazardous substances and hazardous or toxic chemicals, both definitions list similar types, ways, or manners of a release.
EPA believes it is not a full and fair reading of EPCRA section 304(a)(2) to say that EPCRA reporting would still be necessary if a release to the environment qualifies as a release to the environment under CERCLA, regardless of whether reporting is legally required under CERCLA. An EPCRA release into the environment already follows the definition of a release into the environment under CERCLA. Applied to the present rulemaking, emissions into the air from animal waste at farms already qualify as releases into the environment under both statutes (i.e., they are "emitting" or "escaping" under the statutory definitions). Further analysis of what factually is a release to the environment does not shed light on the Congressional intent of EPCRA section 304(a)(2) and does not follow the plain language of the statute, which requires, in part, that a release occurs in a manner which would require notification under CERCLA section 103(a).
A more complete and reasoned interpretation of EPCRA section 304(a)(2) is presented in the Federal Register notice for the proposed rule. When air emissions from animal waste at farms meet the first two criteria of 304(a)(2), the remaining question is whether such a release occurs in a manner that would require notification under CERCLA section 103(a). The Oxford Online Dictionary and the American Heritage Online Dictionary define "manner" as a "way in which a thing is done or happens" or a "kind or sort." The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary similarly defines "manner" as a "kind or sort." EPA believes that, under such definitions, air emissions from animal waste at farms would qualify as a way or kind of release into the environment. CRS agreed with this interpretation in its memorandum dated March 7, 2018, which states:
      [T]he phrase "occurs in a manner" generally has been implemented over time to mean the nature of the release in terms of how the substance enters the environment. [CRS March 7, 2018 memorandum page 6].
The next question is whether the release would require notification under CERCLA section 103(a). As discussed in the proposed rule and this support document, the FARM Act exempted only releases of a certain kind or manner  -  air emissions from animal waste at farms  -  from notification under CERCLA section 103(a). Accordingly, these types of releases do not occur in a manner that would require notification under CERCLA section 103(a). Because the third criteria of EPCRA section 304(a)(2) is not met, no reporting under EPCRA is required.
EPA believes its interpretation follows the plain language of the statute and carries out the Congressional intent of EPCRA section 304(a)(2). In contrast, the commenters' arguments are insufficient as they do not give full meaning to the phrase "occurs in a manner which would require notification under section 103(a) of CERCLA."
EPA also disagrees that it wrongly construed the language in EPCRA 304(a)(2) as "occurs in a manner" which "does" require notification under CERCLA section 103(a), instead of "occurs in a manner" which "would" require notification under CERCLA section 103(a). Throughout the proposed rule, EPA includes analysis of air emissions from animal waste at farms in the context of "would" require notification under CERCLA section 103(a):
      Yet these types of releases do not ``occur[] in a manner'' that would require notification under CERCLA section 103(a) and thus do not meet the third criterion of EPCRA section 304(a)(2)...

      Air emissions from animal waste at farms no longer ``occur[] in a manner'' that would require notification under CERCLA section 103(a) because the recent amendment exempted these types of releases from CERCLA reporting...

      Because air emissions from animal waste do not ``occur[] in a manner'' that would require notification under CERCLA section 103(a), these types of releases do not meet the third criterion of EPCRA section 304(a)(2) and are thus not subject to EPCRA reporting. See 83 FR 56793.

While EPA may have also used the word "does" in replace of "would" at times in the discussion of the proposed rule, that does not mean the Agency ignored the statutory text. The cases cited by Earthjustice to generally discuss subjunctive or hypothetical scenarios are inapposite as applied to this EPCRA rulemaking and provide no clarity on EPCRA section 304(a)(2). Contrary to Earthjustice's assertions, EPA did address different or hypothetical scenarios where releases at farms would require reporting under EPCRA, such as a reportable release from an anhydrous ammonia storage tank into the air.

EPA also disagrees that its interpretation conflicts with EPCRA sections 304(a)(1) and (a)(3), or that it arbitrarily based its interpretation on the method or manner of the release (i.e., into the air). As discussed above, the phrase "occurs in a manner" in EPCRA section 304(a)(2) could reasonably be read to mean the way in which something happens; EPCRA section 304(a)(2) does not identify specific substances. Likewise, the FARM Act amendment to CERCLA exempted air emissions from animal waste at farms, not specific substances. Because these air emissions are a type or way such releases enter into the environment, and these releases do not "occur in a manner" that requires reporting under CERCLA section 103(a), the releases do not meet the criteria to require reporting under EPCRA section 304(a)(2).

Based on a plain reading of the statutory language, EPA believes the proposed rule presents a rational interpretation of EPCRA section 304(a)(2) and its relation to CERCLA section 103 as amended by the FARM Act. EPA believes its interpretation more reasonably represents Congress' intent than the interpretation presented by the commenters. If the statutory language is unclear or ambiguous, EPA believes its interpretation is reasonable and consistent with the legislative history and statutory framework of EPCRA as well as prior regulatory actions.

B. Legislative History and Prior Agency Actions
Commenters argue that the legislative history of the FARM Act makes it clear that Congress intended for EPCRA reporting to continue notwithstanding the FARM Act's CERCLA exemption. Certain members of the Senate EPW cites to testimony by Senators and witnesses explaining that the FARM Act makes no changes to reporting requirements for releases of extremely hazardous substances under EPCRA. Commenters assert that the proposed rule violates the legislative intent of the FARM Act. Earthjustice argues that EPCRA's legislative history does not support EPA's prior actions exempting certain releases from EPCRA reporting, such as the CERCLA continuous release provision.
Response
In enacting the FARM Act, Congress amended the CERCLA section 103 reporting requirements; it did not amend the EPCRA section 304 reporting requirements. While the FARM Act legislative history has relevance with respect to the statutory changes to reporting under CERCLA section 103, EPA considered the EPCRA legislative history when interpreting the statutory text in EPCRA section 304. As stated throughout the proposed rule, EPA has interpreted EPCRA section 304(a)(2) as carrying over CERCLA reporting exemptions related to the manner or nature of release. In this way, EPCRA section 304(a)(2) promotes consistency between EPCRA and CERCLA reporting. The legislative history of the FARM Act does not address the legislative history of EPCRA, and if Congress wished to ensure that the exemption in the FARM Act did not carry over into EPCRA reporting, it could have expressly enacted such statutory text, but it did not.
The legislative history of the FARM Act is correct to the extent that the amendment does not exempt all releases from animal waste at farms from reporting under EPCRA. Rather, the proposed rule tracks the FARM Act to provide that a limited type of release, air emissions from animal waste at farms, are not subject to reporting under EPCRA. The proposed rule does not apply to releases of substances from animal waste into non-air environmental media, nor to releases into the air from sources other than animal waste or decomposing animal waste at a farm. For example, a release from animal waste into water (e.g., a lagoon breach) or a release from an anhydrous ammonia storage tank into the air might trigger reporting requirements if the release exceeds the applicable reportable quantities. This is because the releases occur in a manner that require reporting under CERCLA because they are releases into a non-air media or they are not emissions from animal waste.
The proposed rule also explains how, in the 1986 committee conference report addressing EPCRA, Congress expressed its intent that EPCRA release reporting be aligned with CERCLA reporting. As an example, the committee conference report explains how continuous releases which are not subject to immediate reporting requirements under CERCLA should likewise not be subject to EPCRA reporting. As a result, EPA promulgated reduced reporting requirements that cross-reference and follow the CERCLA reduced reporting requirements for continuous releases. In this manner, EPA reasonably followed Congressional intent to state that numerous types of releases are not subject to reporting under EPCRA when reporting wasn't required under CERCLA, including vehicle emissions, the normal application of fertilizer, and the application of registered pesticide products (see the Federal Register notice for the proposed rule for a more detailed discussion).
Using pesticides as an example, there is no disagreement that the proper application of a federally registered pesticide product is exempt from reporting under CERCLA section 103(a). After all, Congress expressly provided for the exemption in CERCLA section 103(e). Thus, no reporting is required under CERCLA section 103(a). Only a certain manner of pesticide release  -  proper application  -  would not require reporting under CERCLA. In light of this and EPCRA section 304(a)(2), EPA reasonably promulgated an exemption in the EPCRA regulations at 40 CFR 355.31(c). EPCRA section 304(a)(2) works to align EPCRA with CERCLA and logically exclude such an application from EPCRA reporting. A similar analysis applies to air emissions from animal waste at farms as set out in the proposed rule.
In contrast to the application of pesticides, CERCLA section 101(14) excludes petroleum (including crude oil or any fraction thereof) and natural gas from the definition of a CERCLA hazardous substance. Reporting is not required because reporting is only required for releases of hazardous substances. To put it another way, the reason petroleum releases are not reported under CERCLA is unrelated to the manner of a release. Thus, as stated in the proposed rule, EPA has interpreted EPCRA section 304(a)(2) as still requiring the reporting of an eligible petroleum release even when reporting wouldn't be required under CERCLA section 103(a).
The legislative history of the FARM Act's amendment to CERCLA did not nullify the statutory text in EPCRA section 304(a)(2). EPA reasonably interpreted that text and the proposed rule is supported by EPCRA's legislative history. EPA notes that in the legislative history of the FARM Act the Senate reprinted the CRS memorandum, entitled "Supplemental Analysis: Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act/FARM Act (S. 2421)," dated March 13, 2018. EPA's response to that memorandum is discussed above in this support document.

C. Decision in Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA and Related Rulemaking
Commenters state that the proposed rule contravenes the opinion in Waterkeeper Alliance, et al. v. EPA, 853 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Commenters argue that the opinion held that EPCRA has a "sweeping reporting mandate" which requires farms to comply with statutory requirements for releases. Commenters state that EPA already unsuccessfully tried to create an EPCRA reporting exemption for farms in 2008 when it promulgated the final rule entitled, "CERCLA/EPCRA Administrative Reporting Exemption for Air Releases of Hazardous Substances From Animal Waste at Farms," (73 FR 76948 December 18, 2008) ("2008 CERCLA/EPCRA Rule"). Commenters assert that the analysis used in the Waterkeeper decision to invalidate the 2008 CERCLA/EPCRA Rule also invalidates the current proposed rule.
Commenter Earthjustice argues that the Waterkeeper decision found that EPA has no general rulemaking authority for the proposed rule and therefore it is invalid.
Response
As explained in the Federal Register notice for the proposed rule, the current rulemaking is based on a different rationale than the 2008 CERCLA/EPCRA Rule. Thus, the proposed rule is an independent action that is not limited by the Waterkeeper decision.
The 2008 CERCLA/EPCRA Rule exempted all farms from CERCLA's reporting requirements for air releases from animal waste, but provided only a limited exemption from EPCRA reporting requirements for farms that had fewer animals than a large concentrated animal feeding operation as defined by the Clean Water Act. In contrast to the current proposed rule, the 2008 CERCLA/EPCRA Rule did not rely on a CERCLA exemption since one did not exist at that time, and it did not rely on a statutory interpretation of EPCRA section 304(a)(2). The court in Waterkeeper ultimately vacated the rule, finding the Agency could not rely on its general rulemaking authority or a de minimis exception, particularly where the Agency did not identify a statutory ambiguity to support its position.
The statutory landscape has changed markedly since the Waterkeeper decision. In passing the FARM Act in March 2018, Congress amended CERCLA to expressly exempt farms from reporting air emissions from animal waste under CERCLA section 103. As explained in the proposed rule and in this support document, EPA reasonably interpreted the plain language of EPCRA section 304(a)(2) as carrying the FARM Act's CERCLA reporting exemption over to EPCRA reporting. The proposed rule is an independent action from the 2008 CERCLA/EPCRA Rule and is based on a separate rationale. It is therefore not a fair reading of the court's opinion to find that the Waterkeeper decision invalidates the proposed rule. To the contrary, EPA finds support for the proposed rule where the Waterkeeper court states: "Thus all of EPCRA's reporting mandates are piggybacked on the CERCLA mandates in one form or another." Waterkeeper, 853 F.3d at 533. As explained in the proposed rule, EPA has lawfully interpreted EPCRA section 304(a)(2) to align EPCRA and CERCLA reporting requirements and promote consistency between the statutes.
EPA believes commenter Earthjustice mischaracterizes the Waterkeeper decision regarding the Agency's authority for the proposed rule. The Waterkeeper opinion did not invalidate EPA's authority to promulgate rules under EPCRA section 328. Rather, the opinion found that the general rulemaking authority in EPCRA section 328 was not a sufficient basis for the 2008 CERCLA/EPCRA Rule. In contrast, the authority for the proposed rule in this rulemaking is based on EPCRA section 328, and EPA's interpretation of EPCRA section 304(a)(2) and its relationship with CERCLA section 103 as amended by the FARM Act.
IV. Other Comments

Although not specifically requested, the Agency received other comments on the proposed rule.  Commenters assert that the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious because EPA failed to consider a number of different factors in its analysis of the proposed rule. These factors include health impacts, environmental justice, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the need for information. These comments are discussed below.

A. Health and Environmental Impacts

Supporting Comments
Agricultural trade associations expressed general support stating that the proposed rule is fully protective of the communities' health and welfare where our producers and their families also live and work. An anonymous commenter stated that although it is difficult to protect their family from the impacts created by CAFOs, they want to support the farming industry and their ability to produce healthy food for our population so we must explore best practices that focus on sustainability and environmental impact.
One of the commenters quoted the Congressional Research Service analysis prepared for the Senate EPW Committee regarding the effects of air releases from animal waste," if such quantity were released into the ambient air, the concentrations generally would decline with increasing distance from the point of release as a result of dispersion." The analysis went on to point out that a study performed in 2003 by the National Research Council noted, "that potential risks from air releases would depend on exposure that may vary by site and among individuals. The Council found `little scientific evidence' that exposures beyond the boundaries of animal feeding operations have significant effects on human health because the concentrations `usually' are below threshold levels that would present a health risk."
Opposing comments
Numerous commenters, including mass mail campaigns and individuals expressed their concerns that emissions from farms affect their health as well as farm workers.  Some commenters stated that CAFO air emissions are not normal farm odors, they are toxic emissions containing hazardous substances such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. Even at low levels these toxic emissions are dangerous to human health, and at high levels they can be deadly.  Additionally, the commenters stated that sources of air pollution should be monitored and regulated or there will be negative economic and health consequences for all. One commenter quoted studies that showed a relationship between ammonia emissions and decreased lung capacity. This commenter stated that exempting ammonia emissions would fundamentally oppose EPCRA's goal to inform communities on the presence of hazardous pollutants.  The purpose of the EPA is to ensure safety of? the environment, which this proposal making livestock operations exempt conflicts. Another commenter stated that toxic emissions are dangerous to human health even at low levels that it's irresponsible for the EPA to exempt those responsible from reporting them to state and local emergency responders.  Another commenter stated that there should be no exemption for emissions from animal waste farms, large-scale animal farm operations, or any animal waste operations because this animal waste (1) emits methane, known to contribute hugely to global warming and (2) emits vile, noxious odors which are known to be both hazardous to human health and a severe impact on local air quality to the point of making nearby residents' homes uninhabitable by depriving them of the peaceful quiet use and enjoyment of their homes. Further, such an exemption would support continued and expanded factory farming operations, which are both abusive of animals and whose waste operations already have proven to contaminate waterways particularly in the event of flooding or other natural or man-made disasters.
A university research organization commented that EPA should take account of the scientific literature on emissions of these substances, reviews of their toxicity, and related health effects observed in people living or attending school near animal feeding operations. This literature demonstrates that ammonia and hydrogen sulfide releases from animal waste may pose multiple risks. It makes clear the importance of public access, including access by affected communities, independent experts, and emergency responders to information about these releases.
In their comments, an environmental group noted that when the D.C. Circuit struck down EPA's last illegal disclosure exemption, the court noted that the risk of harm from CAFOs "isn't just theoretical; people have become seriously ill and even died as a result" of CAFO emissions. The letter states that their members can confirm that the harm is real, suffering from burning airways and decreased lung capacity because of the toxic emissions that emanate from CAFOs every day.
A university research organization commented that of the air contaminants emitted by animal feeding operations, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide are considered especially dangerous to human health, which is why they are listed as extremely hazardous substances under EPCRA. Human exposure to ammonia triggers respiratory problems, causes nasal and eye irritation, and in extreme circumstances can even be fatal.  Thus, from a public health and environmental quality standpoint, the proposed rule ignores the growing body of scientific studies and government reports showing that ammonia and hydrogen sulfide releases from animal feeding operations have an effect, potentially a significant effect, on human health, the environment, and wildlife.  This commenter also added that this proposed action will severely and unlawfully undermine EPCRA by limiting governmental oversight of air pollution from animal feeding operations and eliminating fundamental protections for communities and emergency workers across the country. The commenter therefore strongly urges EPA to withdraw the proposed rule and instead take prompt action to reduce releases of harmful air pollutants from these operations and mitigate the damage from this pollution to public health, the environment, and wildlife.
Response

EPA takes no position in this rulemaking on the health or environmental effects of air emissions from animal waste at farms. As set out in the proposed rule and this support document, EPA's rationale for the proposed rule is based on an interpretation of the statutory language in EPCRA section 304(a)(2) and its relationship with CERCLA section 103. Because the proposed rule is not based on health or risk, it was not necessary to consider health or environment effects and related studies.
In addition, as stated in the proposed rule and previous sections of this document, the basic intent of EPCRA section 304 release reporting is for state and local agencies to initiate emergency response if necessary. EPCRA section 304 does not contain any provision to reduce or prevent any emissions that occurs at any facility.  EPA has other programs under Office of Air and Office of Water to prevent or reduce emissions from certain facilities or their operations.
Furthermore, on a federal and local level, it is unlikely a response action will be taken for these types of emissions. As indicated by correspondence from NASTTPO, dated June 1, 2017, release reports for air emissions from animal waste at farms are generally ignored as they provide little to no value to local agencies and first responders. NASTTPO states that open dialogue and coordination among farms and local agencies can be more effective than release reporting to address animal waste management at farms.

Comments regarding health or environmental impacts are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

B. Environmental Justice Considerations

EPA received a few opposing comments, including mass mail campaigns stating that EPA did not conduct environmental justice analyses prior to issuing the proposed rule.  Two commenters stated that those who pollute the environment should be forced to pay for cleaning up or pay medical bills for those that affected by the contamination.  One commenter requested that EPA should hold public hearings in various locations near to communities affected by CAFOs.  These commenters also added that costs should not be borne by those families unlucky enough to live in the contamination zone of factory farms, where confined animals emit dangerous levels of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, which can cause asthma, scar the respiratory tract and even cause death.  Two commenters, a university research organization and a community group, expressed that siting and operation of industrial animal feeding operations across the country disproportionately impacts low income communities, communities of color, and indigenous people.

Response

As stated in Section VII, Statutory and Executive Orders Review, of the proposed rule, this rulemaking is not subject to Executive Order 12898 regarding environmental justice or Executive Order 13045 regarding child risk because the rule is not based on environmental, health or safety risks and does not establish an environmental, health or safety standard. EPA has no authority under EPCRA to prevent or reduce emissions from certain facilities or their operations. The rule presents a statutory interpretation intended to maintain consistency between EPCRA section 304(a) and CERCLA section 103 release notification requirements and does not have any impact on human health or the environment.

EPA has no authority under EPCRA to prevent or reduce emissions from certain facilities or their operations.
C. National Environmental Policy Act & Endangered Species Act
Commenters expressed that the proposed rulemaking did not include an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  EPA has also disregarded its obligations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  A university research organization commented that any change to the agency's oversight of air pollution from animal feeding operations is likely to cause significant effects to the human environment that must be analyzed under the NEPA. Those significant effects include, but are not limited, to: an increase in air and water quality degradation and other environmental harm; impacts to endangered or threatened species or their habitats; impacts to public health and safety; and a variety of cumulative impacts.  Accordingly, before EPA takes any action here, it must prepare an EIS detailing the myriad adverse environmental impacts associated with this proposal, and consider reasonable alternatives. EPA's failure to conduct an environmental analysis is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to its legal obligations under NEPA.
Response
The proposed rule is legal in nature and is based on a reasonable interpretation of the statutory language in EPCRA section 304(a)(2) and its relationship with CERCLA section 103 as amended by the FARM Act. This action will have no direct effect on listed species or critical habitats.
Furthermore, courts have long held that EPA rulemakings are exempt from the requirements of NEPA. EPA rulemakings promulgated under the environmental laws administered by the Agency provide the "functional equivalent" of NEPA compliance. See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1051 (D.C. Cir. 1978); Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. EPA, 489 F.2d 1247, 1256 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 384 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
Similarly, no consultation is required under the ESA as this rule has no indirect effects and therefore, there is no reasonable certainty that EPA's interpretation in this rule may affect listed species. Any such effects are too speculative or conjectural to be subject to further NEPA review.
D. Economic Considerations
Commenters assert that EPA did not conduct any meaningful economic analysis as part of the proposed rule. Commenters also expressed concerns that concentrated animal feeding operations reduce the property value those communities near them.
Response
As stated in Section VII, Statutory and Executive Orders Review, of the proposed rule, it was not necessary to conduct any type of economic analysis. The rule is a reasonable codification reflecting the statutory language in EPCRA and CERCLA. The rule does not impose any new information collection burden on businesses and does not result in any additional economic costs. No economic analysis is required under Executive Order 13771 or the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In addition, comments concerning property value are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
E. Availability of Information
Supporting Comments
Although not specifically requested, EPA received comments from state and local emergency responders that animal waste air emission reports they received from large CAFOs in 2009 did not provide any valuable information, but rather it was needless paperwork and acted as an impediment.  EPA also received comments from agricultural trade associations referencing a letter dated June 2017 from NASTTPO organization to EPA regarding the emissions reports from animal manure management:

      We have had experience with EPCRA emergency release reports as well as CERCLA continuous release reports from farms primarily regarding ammonia from animal manure management. These reports are of no particular value to LEPCs and first responders and they are generally ignored because they do not relate to any particular event ... the most important thing to LEPCs and first responders is not detailed regulatory requirements for a facility's relationship to these groups, but rather the simple act of  open dialog and coordination ... NASTTPO believes that open dialog and coordination can be more effective than release reporting for farms that do not handle quantities of EPCRA EHS chemicals but are nevertheless expected to report regarding animal manure management.
In addition to the June 2017 letter to EPA, the NASTTPO organization submitted comments on the proposed rule.  The members of this organization states that it is important to continue getting information from farms on accidental releases from water treatment chemicals or spill of ammonia nurse tanks.  The members of NASTTPO expect that farms will coordinate and cooperate with emergency planning and emergency response organizations on the chemicals present at these farms and the processes and the nature of the risks.
EPA also received comments from several farm bureaus that emission reports from farms do not provide pertinent information for effective planning for chemical emergencies; but establishing relationships between responders and livestock operators can go a long way in helping responders do their jobs efficiently and safely.
Agricultural trade associations commented that adequate information is already available to the public on animal operations and animal waste management as well as the resulting emissions from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) census.  In addition, there are also research studies on most animal operations about the chemical composition of what is released into the air or the range of concentration of substances in these emissions.  These commenters also mentioned that their members paid over $11 million to participate on the National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS) with EPA to characterize the emissions from dairy, beef, swine and poultry operations.  Numerous papers have already been published from this work and the Agency is now developing "Emissions Estimation Methodologies" from these datasets for use in the context of the Clean Air Act, where applicable. Members of communities with questions related to how emissions from animal operations can draw upon this body of knowledge to educate themselves about these emissions.
Response
EPA encourages trade associations and farm bureaus to educate farm owners and operators to participate in the local emergency planning process and inform emergency responders of the chemicals stored at their facility and any potential risks associated with their operations.
Opposing Comments
Several commenters expressed that the proposed exemption will prevent communities from accessing information critical to their health.  EPA received comments from private citizens as well as mass mail campaigns stating the public has the right-to-know on emissions from farms.  The commenters state that exemption only serves to benefit CAFOs and will prevent local communities from accessing information that is critical to protecting public health. It is irresponsible for the EPA to exempt those responsible for such emissions from reporting them to state and local emergency responders. The public has a right to know anytime something is released in the air/water that might affect their health.  The commenters also stated that EPA should not ignore and vacate their right-to-know by exempting the CAFO's responsibility to control and report the toxic emissions they are required to control and report.  One commenter stated that residents deserve to be informed about toxic emissions near them and state and local authorities need this information to respond to releases, when necessary.
Comments from environmental groups state that local emergency response agencies are denied critical information not only about continuous releases of harmful toxins, but also about spikes in such releases from activities such as pit agitation  -  a process through which "hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ammonia `are rapidly released from the manure and may reach toxic levels or displace oxygen, increasing the risk to humans and livestock,'" leading to illness and even death. Local and state emergency response agencies may use these reports to take actions to prevent environmental harms and hazardous emissions from CAFOs.
In their comments, certain members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (SEPW) states that citizens have come to rely upon having access to this data and larger farms already had substantial experience with the EPCRA reporting requirements for hazardous air emissions because they had been reporting those emissions for nearly a decade. When enacting the FARM Act, Congress was able to strike a careful balance which simultaneously reduced reporting burdens on farms while preserving the public's access to valuable information to which they remain legally entitled under EPCRA.
A university research organization expressed that if this rule is finalized, it would unjustly and unlawfully deprive citizens and emergency workers of vital information about releases of extremely hazardous substances such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide from industrial animal feeding operations. This rule would also significantly limit the ability of communities  -  including a disproportionate number of low-income and minority communities  -  to protect their health and wellbeing against such noxious pollution, hinder the public health and safety missions of state and local emergency response agencies, and reduce governmental oversight of these operations.  Yet, through its present rulemaking EPA is seeking to undermine these legislatively granted rights by removing EPCRA's keystone reporting requirements, and all-but eliminating the public's right-to-know. Such action is contrary to the plain language and intent of EPCRA.
A university research organization commented that EPA should require animal feeding operations to report releases using current methodologies while pursuing improvements that could generate necessary data. A novel interpretation of EPCRA that exempts operations from reporting requirements, however, would limit development of these models even as methodologies advance, blocking many communities from assessing exposures and associated risks.
Response
As stated in earlier sections of this document, the intent of EPCRA section 304 is for facilities to notify the state and local emergency responders of accidental releases of EPCRA EHSs and CERCLA hazardous substances so that these agencies can initiate evacuation of the community or provide shelter from acute exposure to these chemicals.  Comments from NASTTPO as well as their letter to EPA (June 2017) express that the emission reports from animal manure management are not vital to local emergency responders, but instead open dialogue is more important.  In response to comments that local and state emergency response agencies may use these reports to take action to prevent environmental hazardous emissions from CAFOs, EPA is not aware of any of these agencies using animal waste emission reports to prevent emissions.
As a statutory matter, release information can only be made available to the extent that a release report is required. EPCRA section 304(b)(1) provides for release notification to the LEPC and the SERC if notice is required under one of the mechanisms in EPCRA section 304(a). As set out in the proposed rule and this support document, EPA interprets EPCRA 304(a) as not requiring notification for air releases from animal waste at farms. Accordingly, no notice is required to the state and local entities under EPCRA section 304(b)(1). Similar reasoning applies to public availability under EPCRA section 324. Because reporting for these releases are not required under EPCRA section 304(a), there are no reports to be made available to the public under EPCRA section 324. Comments regarding information availability or data availability are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
EPA notes that this EPCRA rulemaking does not limit the Agency's authority under CERCLA sections 104 (response authorities), 106 (abatement actions), 107 (liability), or any other provisions of CERCLA to address releases of hazardous substances at farms.
F. Request for Public Comment Period Extension & Public Hearings
Three commenters, a university research organization, mass mail campaign and community group, requested EPA to extend the public comment period for the proposed rule.  These commenters stated that the proposed rule may have significant consequences on the ability of local governments and their residents to protect their health and wellbeing, none of which seems to have been considered by EPA during the preparation of the proposed rule.  Additionally, these commenters expressed that they need an additional 60 days to collect information from studies on health and environmental impacts of CAFO air emissions on surrounding communities as rulemaking docket does not contain any scientific studies or other documents about toxic emissions from CAFOs and their impact on surrounding communities.
Two groups, mass mail campaigns and community organization, requested public hearings on the proposed rule stating that given the impact that the proposed rule will have on communities across the country, including a disproportionate number of low-income and minority communities, EPA should schedule at least three public hearings in various locations across the country to ensure adequate public participation in the rulemaking process. EPA should hold these hearings in locations near to communities affected by CAFOs, for example, communities in North Carolina, Maryland, Iowa, or Oklahoma, to name a few.
Response
EPA believes that the 30-day comment period was appropriate. The proposed rule is based on a reasonable interpretation of the statutory language in EPCRA section 304(a)(2) and its relationship with CERCLA section 103 as amended by the FARM Act. EPA's rationale is set out in the Federal Register notice for the proposed rule and all the supporting documents the Agency relied on are available in the associated docket.
The proposed rule is not based on health or environmental risk, so no such associated studies are necessary. Because the proposed rule is based on a statutory interpretation, the record is not extensive, and therefore EPA did not believe such an extension should be granted. EPA also generally set out its statutory interpretation in the guidance document entitled "How does the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method (FARM) Act impact reporting of air emissions from animal waste under CERCLA Section 103 and EPCRA Section 304?" dated April 2018. That guidance document states: "EPA intends to conduct a rulemaking to address the impact of the FARM Act on the reporting of air emissions from animal waste at farms under EPCRA." Accordingly, the commenters were provided ample time and no extensions were necessary to comment on EPA's statutory interpretation. Similarly, no public meetings or hearing were required or deemed necessary to allow for comment on EPA's interpretation.
G. Reporting Burden & Farm Size
Supporting Comments
Agricultural trade associations and farm bureaus expressed that reporting emissions from manure management is burdensome for farms.  First responders and county management agencies commented that release reports received from large CAFOs in 2009 resulted from the December 2008 rulemaking were never used to respond to any emergencies, but instead impeded response efforts by creating a new onerous layer of information.  These commenters also stated that fire fighters, police officers, and emergency medical technicians in rural communities already operate on limited budgets and precious time. They need important information in a timely manner to effectively respond to natural disasters, not unnecessary paperwork that impairs their ability to respond to on-farm emergencies. Additionally, having EPCRA and CERCLA with contradicting requirements on air emissions only provide continuous burdensome regulations in which animal operations must abide by. These contradicting requirements also disproportionately impact smaller farms and ranches, forcing some out of production.
An anonymous commenter expressed that EPCRA reporting of continuous, routine releases from animal manure management is of no value or use in emergency response efforts. In addition, it places an unnecessary burden on the agriculture industry and can only lead to more expense and higher food costs.

Response

EPA acknowledges the supporting comments received. This rule seeks to codify the Agency's interpretation that air emission from animal waste at farms are not subject to the reporting requirements of EPCRA section 304 consistent with CERCLA section 103 as amended by the FARM Act.
Opposing Comments
Commenters expressed that EPCRA reporting requirements create minimal paperwork burden for large CAFOs while providing invaluable health and safety information to rural communities. One commenter stated that farmers can set up air monitors which would allow them to accurately measure air emissions.
An environmental group commented that smaller animal feeding operations and ranching/grazing operations are unlikely to be subject to EPCRA reporting requirements, even without the proposed rule. Most farms are not expected to release the reportable quantity of these toxic chemicals and thus would not need to report agricultural emissions under EPCRA. Rather, it is the larger, industrial animal feeding operations, typically those that house thousands or even millions of animals that release toxic emissions surpassing the reportable quantities of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide and that pose grave public health risks to surrounding communities. These massive industrial facilities that emit hundreds of pounds of toxic chemicals into the air every day are the facilities that EPA seeks to exempt from EPCRA's reporting requirements under the proposed rule.
Response

This rule is not based on the burden imposed for reporting emissions from animal waste. It is based on the relationship between EPCRA section 304 and CERCLA section 103 release reporting requirements as amended by the FARM Act. Those statutory sections, as interpreted by EPA, also do not consider reporting based on the number of animals present at a farm. These comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
H. Reporting Liability
In their comments, agricultural trade associations express that emission reports from manure management create liabilities for farmers due to the lack of data and methodologies to calculate emissions.  They also state that cattle operators and producers continue to struggle with what type of release need to be reported and at the same time question how such reports will improve response safety.
Response
EPA acknowledges commenters' concerns, but these comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
I. Animal Cruelty
Commenters expressed their concerns that animals are tortured and they would also like to see some legislation preventing cruel killing of these animals.  These farms need to be held accountable for providing safe conditions for the animals and those living in the vicinity of the CAFO or stop these horrible facilities. Further, a reporting exemption would support continued and expanded factory farming operations, which are both abusive of animals and whose waste operations already have proven to contaminate waterways, particularly in the event of flooding or other natural or man-made disasters.
Response
EPA acknowledges commenters' concerns, but these comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

                                  Appendix A
                              List of Commenters
                                      DCN
                                     Name
                                  Affiliation
                             Number of individuals
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0020
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0021
K. Gould
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0022
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0023
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0024
J. Judkins
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0025
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0026
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0027
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0028
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0029
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0030
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0031
K. Barth
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0032
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0033
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0034
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0035
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0036
M. Elwood
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0037
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0038
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0039
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Earthjustice (web)
Earthjustice
                                      143
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0040
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0041
Jack Field, Executive Director
Washington Cattle Feeders Association
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0042
Michelle Roos, Executive Director
Environmental Protection Network
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0043
Anonymous public comment
West Virginia Department of Agriculture
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0044
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0045
E. McCarthy
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0046
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0047
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0048
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0049
Anonymous public comment
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0050
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0051
R. King
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0052
M. Lundgren
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0054
"I strongly oppose" Mass Comment Campaign
Anonymous
                                     6,880
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0055
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0056
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0057
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0058
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0059
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0060
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0061
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0062
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0063
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0064
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0065
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0066
Vicki Tanner
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0067
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0068
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0069
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0070
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0071
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0072
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0073
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0074
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0075
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0076
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0077
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0078
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0079
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0080
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0081
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0082
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0083
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0084
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0085
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0086
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0087
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0088
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0089
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0090
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0091
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0092
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0093
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0094
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0095
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0096
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0097
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0098
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0099
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0100
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0101
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0102
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0103
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0104
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0105
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0106
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0107
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0108
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0109
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0110
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0111
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0112
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0113
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0114
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0115
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0116
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0117
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0118
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0119
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0120
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0121
John Lahr
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0122
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0123
Brooke Bowman
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0124
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0125
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0126
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0127
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0128
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0129
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0130
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0131
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0132
A. Eisenberg
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0133
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0134
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0135
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0136
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0137
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0138
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0139
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0140
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0141
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0142
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0143
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0144
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0145
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0146
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0147
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0148
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0149
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0150
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0151
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0152
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0153
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0154
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0155
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0156
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0157
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0158
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0159
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0160
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0161
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0162
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0163
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0164
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0165
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0166
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0167
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0168
D. Seabloom
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0169
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0170
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0171
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0172
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0173
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0174
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0175
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0176
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0177
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0178
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0179
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0180
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0181
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0182
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0183
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0184
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0185
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0186
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0187
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0188
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0189
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0190
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0191
C. Souder
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0192
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0193
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0194
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0195
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0196
N. Tilleraas
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0197
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0198
C. Guffey
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0199
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0200
A. Feltman
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0201
F. Salatino
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0202
J. Wulling
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0203
K. Nagarajan
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0204
F. Kloucek
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0205
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0206
R. Peters
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0207
W. Sharfman
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0208
K. Vaughn
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0209
J. Bradbury
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0210
K. Kemps
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0211
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0212
M. Migdal
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0213
Jon C. Dahmen
Whitman County Cattlemen's Association and Whitman County Fire Chiefs Association (WCFCA)
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0214
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0215
Bill Tensfeld
Whitman County Emergency Management
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0216
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0217
Federal Trade Commission
FTC
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0218
A. Moriarity
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0219
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0220
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0221
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0222
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0223
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0224
Michael Formica
National Pork Producers Council
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0225
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0226
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0227
E. Wallace
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0228
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0229
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0230
N. Williams
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0231
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0232
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0233
D. Gaines
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0234
C. Lish
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0235
Clay Detlefsen
National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF)
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0236
Thomas Hebert
United Egg Producers (UEP)
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0237
M. Finsterwalder
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0238
Timothy R. Gablehouse
National Association of SARA Title III Program Officials (NASTTPO)
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0239
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0240
MJM
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0241
Blake E. Roderick
Pike-Scott Farm Bureau
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0242
Daniel Heady
Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF)
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0243
M. Kawecki
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0244
Kendra Jones
Tyson Foods, Inc.
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0245
Keeve E. Nachman
Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future et al.
                                       8
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0246
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0247
Brandon Schmidt
 Kittitas County Cattlemen's Association
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0248
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0249
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0250
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0251
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0252
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0253
A. James
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0254
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0255
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0256
L. Rosin
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0257
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0258
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0259
A. Miccio
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0260
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0261
J. Michael
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0262
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0263
Keith Larick
North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation (NCFB)
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0264
J. V. Freeman
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0265
M. Genaze
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0266
C. Reade
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0267
S. Davis
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0268
S. Harris
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0269
J. Toth
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0270
M. Starr
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0271
R. Arquette
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0272
R. Elam
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0273
M. Verdeyen
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0274
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0275
J. Thompson
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0276
R. Fletcher
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0277
D. Markey
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0278
V. Valentine
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0279
W. Dann
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0280
G. Reyes-Illg
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0281
D. Kisor
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0282
P. Reagan
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0283
Levi Berry
Texas Cattle Feeders Association (TCFA)
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0284
D. Long
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0285
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0286
J. Kunz
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0287
S. Deans
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0288
K. Hedberg
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0289
K. Watts
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0290
E. Feuerbacher
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0291
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0292
A. Mega
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0293
David Trowbridge
Iowa Cattlemen's Association
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0294
Ryan Collins, Michael Collins
Allamakee County Cattlemen's Association and Harper's Ferry Fire Department
                                       2
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0295
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0296
D. Clarahan
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0297
N. Clarahan
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0298
R. Clarahan
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0299
David Fisher
New York Farm Bureau (NYFB)
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0300
Jean Mendoza
Friends of Toppenish Creek (FOTC)
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0301
Charles F. Conner
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC)
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0302
M. Rosczyk
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0303
Laura A. Campbell
Michigan Farm Bureau
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0304
Tom Sidwell
New Mexico Cattle Growers Association (NMCGA)
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0305
K. Tonnies
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0306
S. Saplin
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0307
SierraRise (web)
SierraRise
                                    24,104
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0308
In Defense of Animals (web)
In Defense of Animals
                                     5,881
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0309
A. J. Lauver
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0310
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0311
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0312
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0313
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0314
L. Beebe
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0315
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0316
K. Kujawa
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0317
D. Judge
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0318
K. Lerner
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0319
L. Glaeske
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0320
P. Moody
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0321
M. Lyons
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0322
C. Lee
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0323
V. McDonald
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0324
L. Arrandale
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0325
C. Marks
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0326
L. Cox
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0327
M. Mataisz
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0328
J. Glenn
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0329
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0330
E. Kinney
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0331
J. Herman
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0332
N. Kropp
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0333
R. Avila
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0334
J. Emel
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0335
L. Schenck
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0336
S. Hahn
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0337
C. Rucker
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0338
B. Richards
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0339
J. Pask
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0340
S. Racine
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0341
C. Donahue
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0342
K. Ruopp
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0343
M. Farone
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0344
A. Gaspero
General Public
                                       1
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0345
D. DesLauriers
General Public
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0346
Alicia LaPorte (Mass Mailing)
Fair Farms Maryland
                                      171
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0347
Jonathan Smith (Mass Mailing)
Earthjustice
                                      115
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0348
Joanna Lee (Mass Mailing)
Center for Food Safety
                                    12,750
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0349
Anonymous public comment
Anonymous
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0350
 C. Ampel
General Public
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0351
B. Sloss
General Public
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0352
L. Mazzola
General Public
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0353
M. Frazier
Anonymous
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0354
P. Gorer
General Public
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0355
Anonymous public comment
General Public
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0356
J. Mainiero
General Public
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0357
N. Ortman
General Public
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0358
D. Little
General Public
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0359
S. Hearon
General Public
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0360
K. Doerr
General Public
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0361
 E. McCorry
General Public
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0362
 M. Smith
General Public
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0363
U. Eagly
General Public
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0364
S. Rudnicki
General Public
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0365
A. Gaspero
General Public
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0366
J. Chase
General Public
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0367
Janet Crow
North Dakota Department of Agriculture
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0368
Doug Goehring
North Dakota Department of Agriculture
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0369
Stefanie Smallhouse
Arizona Farm Bureau Federation
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0370
Lauren Lurkins
Illinois Farm Bureau
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0371
Bronson Corn
New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0372
Chad Vorthmann
Colorado Farm Bureau
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0373
Tom Carper, et. al
Certain members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
                                      10
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0374
 Dan Rorvig
North Dakota Stockmen's Association
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0375
Leslie Bennett
Franklin County Cattleman's Association
                                       4
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0376
Hannah Connor and Robert Martin
Center for Biological Diversity and Johns Hopkins Center for Livable Future
                                       2
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0377
Robert E. McKnight, Jr
Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0378
Corinne Madison
California Farm Bureau Federation
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0379
Mary Anne Cooper
Oregon Farm Bureau Federation
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0380
Valerie Huerta
New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0381
 Barbara A. Downey and Joseph D. Carpenter
Kansas Livestock Association (KLA) and Wabaunsee County Fire Department
                                       2
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0382
Barbara Downey, President and Amy Terrapin
Kansas Livestock Association (KLA) and County Emergency Management
                                       2
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0383
D. Casper
General Public
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0384
M. Laws
General Public
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0385
R. Schoemer
General Public
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0386
Grant R. Gulibon
Pennsylvania Farm Bureau
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0387
National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) et al.
National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) et al.
                                      20
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0388
Dale Moore
American Farm Bureau Federation
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0389
Steve Ollerich and Todd Mortenson
South Dakota Cattlemen's Association, First Responder
                                       2
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0390
Jon Greenwood
Northeast Dairy Producers Association
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0391
Lisa Feldt
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0392
Don Lee
New Mexico Federal Lands Council
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0393
Tom Carper et. al (Duplicate comment)
Certain members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
                                      10
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0394
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Friends of the Earth (web)
Friends of the Earth
                                    36,064
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0395
Paul Bredwell
U.S. Poultry & Egg Association et al.
                                      17
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0396
Lyman L. Nuss, Keith A. Habery
Russell County, Kansas Livestock Association (KLA) and Russell County Emergency Management
                                       2
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0397
Jim Macy
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ)
                                       1
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0398
Carrie Apfel
Earthjustice et al.
Already counted above
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0399
Carrie Apfel
Earthjustice et al.
Already counted above
 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0400
Carrie Apfel
Earthjustice et al.
Already counted above