[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 247 (Friday, December 23, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80314-80318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32830]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080; FRL-9610-1]
RIN 2060-AR16


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area 
Source Standards for Prepared Feeds Manufacturing; Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to revise certain provisions of the area 
source national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 
(NESHAP) for prepared feeds manufacturing published on January 5, 2010 
(final rule). These revisions will clarify the regulatory requirements 
for this source category and ensure that those requirements are 
consistent with the record. The revisions address the generally 
available control technology (GACT) requirements for pelleting 
processes at large, existing prepared feeds manufacturing facilities, 
specifically removal of the cyclone 95-percent design efficiency 
requirement, as well as associated requirements for compliance 
demonstration, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping; clarification 
of the requirement that doors be kept closed in areas where materials 
containing chromium and manganese are stored, used, or handled; and 
clarification of the requirement to install a device at the point of 
bulk loadout to minimize emissions. These amendments are not expected 
to result in increased emissions or in the imposition of costs beyond 
those described in the January 5, 2010, final rule.

DATES: Written comments must be received by January 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0080, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov: 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the EPA Air and 
Radiation Docket Web site.
     Email: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0080 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: Send comments to (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080.
     Mail: Area Source NESHAP for Prepared Feeds Manufacturing 
Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and 
Information Center, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA 
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0080. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and

[[Page 80315]]

may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any 
personal information provided, unless the comment includes information 
claimed to be confidential business information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit 
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through 
http://www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know 
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body 
of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA 
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address 
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that 
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If 
you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include 
your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and 
with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and 
be free of any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on 
submitting comments, see Section III of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of this document.
    Docket: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080. All documents in the docket are 
listed in the Federal Docket Management System index at 
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is 
not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure 
is restricted by statute). Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically through 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Public 
Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 
number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jan King, Outreach and Information 
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C404-05), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. 
Telephone number: (919) 541-5665; fax number: (919) 541-0242; email 
address: king.jan@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble 
is organized as follows:

I. Why is the EPA issuing a proposed rule?
II. Does this action apply to me?
III. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
    A. Submitting CBI
    B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
IV. Where can I get a copy of this document?
V. What amendments are being proposed?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. Why is the EPA issuing a proposed rule?

    This document proposes amendments affecting sources regulated under 
the area source national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants (NESHAP) for prepared feeds manufacturing published on 
January 5, 2010 (75 FR 522). Because we view this as a noncontroversial 
action and anticipate no adverse comment, we have published a direct 
final rule in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal 
Register revising the generally available control technology (GACT) 
standard for pelleting operations at large, existing prepared feeds 
manufacturing facilities; clarifying the requirement to keep doors 
closed in areas where materials containing chromium and manganese are 
stored, used, and handled; and clarifying the requirement that a device 
of any type can be used during the bulk loadout process.
    If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action 
on this proposed rule and the direct final rule will become effective 
on February 21, 2012 without further notice. If we receive adverse 
comment, we will address all public comments in any subsequent final 
rule based on this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comment by 
January 23, 2012 on a distinct provision of this proposed rule, we will 
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which 
provisions we are withdrawing. The provisions that are not withdrawn 
will become effective on the date set out above, notwithstanding 
adverse comment on any other provision.
    We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this 
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. 
For further information, please see the information provided in the 
ADDRESSES section of this document.

II. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated Entities. The regulated categories and entities 
potentially affected by the rule include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Examples of regulated
           Category               NAICS code 1           entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Animal Foods                        311119  Animal feeds, prepared
 Manufacturing.                                    (except dog and cat),
                                                   manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11619, 
subpart DDDDDDD (NESHAP for Area Sources: Prepared Feeds 
Manufacturing). If you have any questions regarding the applicability 
of this action to a particular entity, consult either the state 
delegated authority or the EPA regional representative, as listed in 40 
CFR 63.13 of subparts A (General Provisions).

[[Page 80316]]

III. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA 
through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 
CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM 
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (e.g., subject heading, Federal Register date 
and page number).
     Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

IV. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    Electronic Access. In addition to being available in the docket, an 
electronic copy of this direct final action will also be available on 
the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 
Because this is an amendment of regulatory language through rulemaking, 
a redline version of the regulatory language has been created and has 
been placed in the docket (http://www.regulations.gov, see Docket No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080) to aid the public's ability to comment on the 
regulatory text. Following signature, a copy of this final action will 
be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or 
promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various 
areas of air pollution control.

V. What amendments are being proposed?

    On January 5, 2010 (75 FR 522), the EPA promulgated the NESHAP for 
area source prepared feeds manufacturing facilities as subpart DDDDDDD 
in 40 CFR part 63. Existing affected sources (i.e., construction or 
reconstruction of the facility began on or before July 27, 2009) must 
comply with the rule by January 5, 2012, while new affected sources 
(i.e., construction or reconstruction of the facility began after July 
27, 2009) were required to comply by January 5, 2010, or upon startup, 
whichever is later.
    Today's proposal consists of three revisions and clarifications. 
The rule requires that pelleting operations at large prepared feeds 
manufacturing facilities (i.e., those facilities with an average daily 
feed production level exceeding 50 tons per day) use cyclones. In the 
final rule, these cyclones were required to have a 95-percent design 
efficiency. This proposal revises this requirement for existing sources 
only.\2\ Such sources must use cyclones, and those cyclones must be 
operated in accordance with good air pollution control practices and 
manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions, if available, 
or standard operating procedures must be developed by the facility 
owner or operator to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the 
cyclone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We are not changing any requirements for new large, prepared 
feeds manufacturing facilities. We have amended the regulatory text 
to clarify that the design efficiency requirement and associated 
compliance mechanisms, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping 
requirements apply only to new sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preamble to the final rule, we recognized that the cyclones 
employed on pelleting operations at existing, large prepared feeds 
manufacturing facilities were generally available and provided 
effective Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) emissions control (75 FR 533). 
We added the 95-percent design efficiency requirement in the final rule 
because we thought, based on limited data from sources that would need 
to install cyclones, that a large percentage of existing cyclones at 
large facilities already met that design efficiency (75 FR 544). In 
assessing the costs of the design efficiency requirement as part of our 
GACT analysis, we estimated that few existing sources (approximately 2 
percent) did not have cyclones and would need to install them to meet 
the requirement (Economic Impact Analysis for the Prepared Feeds 
Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP, June 17, 2009, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0080-0036). We also explained in the final rule that it was not 
our intent to force prepared feed manufacturers to replace older, well-
designed, and properly operating cyclones with new high-efficiency 
cyclones (75 FR 533). Indeed, we recognized that requiring the 
replacement of older, well designed, properly operating cyclones was 
not cost effective, because the incremental emission reductions would 
be very low and the costs would be high (75 FR 533).
    The EPA included in the final rule three different mechanisms by 
which a source could demonstrate compliance with the design efficiency 
requirement. 40 CFR 63.11621(e)(1)-(3). A source could show compliance 
by having either cyclone manufacturer certification/specifications, a 
certification by a professional engineer or responsible official, or a 
Method 5 performance test that indicates whether PM is being released 
from the system (Appendix A to part 60) (which determines the 
particulate matter mass rate at the inlet and outlet of the cyclone). 
The EPA has recently learned that most existing sources would need to 
install new cyclones to provide the required documentation for 
demonstrating compliance with the final rule. (Material presented by 
prepared feeds industry representatives at the January 25, 2011, 
meeting with EPA staff, and Industry Request for Administrative Stay 
and Reconsideration--June 10 2011, both of which are located in Docket 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080). That was not the intent of the final rule, 
and this result cannot be reconciled with the GACT analysis underlying 
the final rule.
    As noted above, we premised the design efficiency requirement in 
the final rule for existing sources on the assumption that all but a 
few cyclones were meeting that requirement and that only a few sources 
would need to install new cyclones. Our cost analysis in the final rule 
tracked this assumption. We now recognize that this assumption was 
incorrect, and that our regulations, as written, would require many 
existing facilities to replace existing cyclones, which is contrary to 
our GACT analysis. As explained in the final rule, the replacement of 
older, well designed, properly operating cyclones is not cost

[[Page 80317]]

effective (75 FR at 533). We are therefore proposing to revise the 
requirement of the final rule for pelleting operations at existing 
large, prepared feeds manufacturing facilities (i.e., those facilities 
with an average daily feed production level exceeding 50 tons per day) 
to require the use of cyclones. We are also proposing that the cyclones 
be operated in accordance with good air pollution control practices and 
manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions, if available, 
or standard operating procedures must be developed by the facility 
owner or operator to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the 
cyclone. These proposed revisions are wholly consistent with the record 
supporting the final rule, including the cost analysis and our 
determination that cyclones are generally available for existing 
sources and effectively control HAP emissions.
    Further, the EPA is proposing to revise the requirements for 
demonstration of compliance, monitoring, and the notification, 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements for existing sources only, 
consistent with the removal of the design efficiency requirement for 
those sources. This action proposes to amend the notification of 
compliance status requirements such that the cyclone manufacturer's 
operating specifications or standard operating procedures developed by 
the prepared feeds manufacturer be required as part of the record 
instead of one of the cyclone parameters as specified in the final rule 
(i.e., inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage 
range). The revised annual compliance certification would include all 
instances when the cyclone does not operate according to manufacturer 
specifications or the standard operating procedures. This would replace 
the requirement for existing sources to include in the annual 
compliance certification the cyclone parameters listed in the final 
rule. We are also proposing to revise the recordkeeping requirements 
for existing sources to require the owner or operator to record the 
results of weekly visual inspections. This would replace the 
requirement in the January 5, 2010, final rule for existing sources to 
record the daily inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan 
amperage.
    This action also clarifies that the requirement to keep doors 
closed in areas where materials containing manganese and chromium are 
stored, used, or handled does not apply to areas where finished 
prepared feeds product is stored in closed containers, since there are 
no HAP emissions in these areas. See 40 CFR 63.11621(a)(iii).
    Finally, there has been some confusion regarding the type of device 
needed to comply with the bulk loadout provision at 40 CFR 63.11621(d). 
These proposed amendments would clarify that any type of device may be 
used to minimize the distance between the place where bulk loadout 
occurs and the vehicle being loaded. The distance may also be minimized 
by the design of the loadout process itself (e.g., the loadout arm 
positioned directly above the vehicle being loaded).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

 A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden above 
that required in the original rule. The revisions do not require 
additional information collection requirements and may result in an 
overall reduction of the information collection burden. Therefore, the 
information collection requests are not being amended. The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) previously approved the information 
collection request (ICR) contained in the existing regulations (subpart 
DDDDDDD, 40 CFR part 63) under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control 
number 2060-0635 (ICR 2354.02). The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's regulations found at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this action on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final 
rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action 
does not impose any additional costs over those in the final rule 
published on January 5, 2010 (75 FR 522). In fact, the clarifications 
contained in this action are expected to reduce costs for some small 
businesses that would otherwise have installed control equipment, but 
that would not be required to do so as a result of these amendments.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandate under the provisions of 
title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 
1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments, or the private 
sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on state, local, or 
tribal governments, or the private sector. Therefore, this action is 
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes 
no obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

[[Page 80318]]

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

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

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

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

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 
May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12886.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (''NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law 
or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the 
EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this direct final rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment. This direct final rule makes revisions and clarifications 
to the rule and should not result in increased emissions beyond those 
described in the final rule.

 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: December 15, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-32830 Filed 12-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P