National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Prepared Feeds Manufacturing, 36980-36994 [E9-17826]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 142 (Monday, July 27, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36980-36994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17826]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080; FRL-8935-1]
RIN 2060-AO98


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing national emissions standards for control of 
hazardous air pollutants from prepared feeds manufacturing facilities. 
The proposed emissions standards for new and existing sources are based 
on EPA's proposed determination as to what constitutes the generally 
available control technology or management practices for the area 
source category.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 26, 2009, unless a 
public hearing is requested by August 6, 2009. If a hearing is 
requested on the proposed rules, written comments must be received by 
September 10, 2009. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the 
information collection provisions must be received by Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) on or before August 26, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0080, may be submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web Site: https://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the EPA Air and 
Radiation Docket Web Site.
     E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) 
to a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, include Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080 
in subject line of the message.
     Fax: Fax your comments to: (202) 566-9744, Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080.
     Mail: Send your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket and 
Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0080. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, 
please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection 
provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory

[[Page 36981]]

Affairs, OMB, Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., 
Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: EPA 
Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only 
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special 
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. All comments will be posted without change and may be made 
available online at https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation'' 
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy 
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA 
Center EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3334, 
Washington, DC 20460. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the 
telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jan King, Outreach and Information 
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C404-05), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5665; fax number: (919) 541-7674; e-
mail address: king.jan@epa.gov.

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

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards
    A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for 
the proposed standards?
    B. What source category is affected by the proposed standards?
    C. What are the production operations, emission sources, and 
available controls?
III. Summary of This Proposed Rule
    A. What are the applicability provisions and compliance dates?
    B. What are the proposed standards?
    C. What are the compliance requirements?
    D. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?
IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule
    A. How did we select the affected source?
    B. How did we ensure that the listed HAP are addressed by this 
rule?
    C. How did we subcategorize the Prepared Feeds Manufacturing 
source category?
    D. How did we determine GACT?
    E. How did we select the compliance requirements?
    F. How did we decide to exempt this area source category from 
Title V permit requirements?
V. Summary of Impacts of the Proposed Standards
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by the 
proposed standards are prepared feeds manufacturers who add chromium 
compounds or manganese compounds to their product. In general, the 
facilities potentially affected by the rule are covered under the North 
American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code listed in the 
following table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
            Category             NAICS code \1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry:
    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 would be regulated by this 
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 
63.11619 of subpart DDDDDDD (NESHAP for Area Sources: Prepared Feeds 
Manufacturing). If you have any questions regarding the applicability 
of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permit 
authority for the entity or your EPA regional

[[Page 36982]]

representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General 
Provisions).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?

    Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified 
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 
Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080. 
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be 
CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark 
the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify 
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that 
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that 
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for 
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2.

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this proposed action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 
copy of this proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and 
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following 
address: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information 
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

D. When would a public hearing occur?

    If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing 
concerning the proposed rule by August 6, 2009, we will hold a public 
hearing on August 11, 2009. Persons interested in presenting oral 
testimony at the hearing, or inquiring as to whether a hearing will be 
held, should contact Ms. Christine Adams at (919) 541-5590 at least two 
days in advance of the hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be 
held at 10 a.m. at the EPA's Environmental Research Center Auditorium, 
109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate 
site nearby.

II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards

A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for the 
proposed standards?

    Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires us to establish 
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 
both major and area sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) that are 
listed for regulation under CAA section 112(c). A major source emits or 
has the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tons/yr) or more of any 
single HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of any combination of HAP. An area 
source is a stationary source that is not a major source.
    Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least 
30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the 
greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. 
EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air 
Toxics Strategy (Strategy), (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, 
in the Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential 
health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the ``30 
urban HAP.'' Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient 
categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources 
representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are 
subject to regulation. A primary goal of the Strategy is to achieve a 
75 percent reduction in cancer incidence attributable to HAP emitted 
from stationary sources.
    Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards 
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of 
generally available control technologies or management practices 
(``GACT'') by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants.'' Additional information on GACT is found in the Senate 
report on the legislation (Senate Report Number 101-228, December 20, 
1989), which describes GACT as:

* * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the 
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities 
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.

    Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and 
economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly important 
when developing regulations for source categories that may have many 
small businesses such as this one.
    Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control 
technologies and management practices that are generally available to 
the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards 
applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine 
if the control technologies and management practices are transferable 
and generally available to area sources. In appropriate circumstances, 
we may also consider technologies and practices at area and major 
sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies 
and practices could be considered generally available for the area 
source category at issue. Finally, as noted above, in determining GACT 
for a particular area source category, we consider the costs and 
economic impacts of available control technologies and management 
practices on that category.
    We are proposing these national emission standards in response to a 
court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for this 
source category, listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k) by August 
17, 2009 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 01-1537, D.D.C., March 2006). 
Other rulemakings will include standards for the remaining source 
categories that are due in October 2009.

B. What source category is affected by the proposed standards?

    The source category affected by the proposed standards is prepared 
feeds manufacturers (except for dog and cat food) who add chromium 
compounds or manganese compounds to their product. We listed the 
prepared feed source category under CAA section 112(c)(3) in one of a 
series of amendments (November 22, 2002, 67 FR 70427) to the original 
source category list included in the 1999 Strategy. The inclusion of 
this source category of the section 112(c)(3) area source category list 
is based on 1990 emissions data, as EPA used 1990 as the baseline year 
for that listing. Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient 
categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources 
representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are 
subject to regulation.
    In preparing this proposed rule, we solicited information on the 
production operations, emission sources, and available controls using 
written facility surveys from, and operating permits for, prepared feed 
manufacturing area sources, as well as from reviews of published 
literature. We also held discussions with trade association and 
industry representatives. From this

[[Page 36983]]

research we found that the prepared feeds manufacturing area source 
category emits the listed urban HAP chromium compounds and manganese 
compounds. Based on current information, including the 2002 Census, we 
believe that there are around 1,800 area source prepared feed 
manufacturing facilities currently operating that add chromium 
compounds or manganese compounds to their products that would be 
subject to the proposed area source standards. These proposed standards 
do not apply to research and development facilities, as defined in 
section 112(c)(7) of the CAA.

C. What are the production operations, emission sources, and available 
controls?

    Prepared feeds manufacturers produce feeds for large and small 
animals, from hamsters and gerbils to farm animals. Over 200 
ingredients may be used in feed production operations including grain 
and byproducts such as meat meal, bone meal, beet, and tomato pulp. 
Medicinals, vitamins, and minerals are also added in small portions.
    Grain is usually received at the mill by hopper bottom truck and/or 
rail cars, or in some cases, by barge. Most mills pass selected feed 
ingredients, primarily grains, through cleaning equipment prior to 
storage. Upon removal from storage, the grain is transferred to the 
grinding area, where selected whole grains, primarily corn, are ground 
prior to mixing with other feed components. The hammermill is the most 
widely used grinding device. The pulverized material is forced out of 
the mill chamber when it is ground finely enough to pass through the 
perforations in the mill screen.
    Mixing is the most important process in feed milling and is 
normally a batch process. Ingredients, including those containing 
chromium compounds and manganese compounds, are weighed on bench or 
hopper scales before mixing. Mixers may be horizontal or vertical type, 
using either screws or paddles to move the ingredients.
    The material leaving the mixer is meal, or mash, and may be 
marketed in this form. If pellets are to be made, the meal is 
conditioned with steam prior to being pelleted. Pelleting is a process 
in which the conditioned meal is forced through dies. Pellets are 
usually 3.2 to 19 mm (\1/8\ to \3/4\ in.) in diameter. After pelleting, 
pellets are dried and cooled in pellet coolers. If pellets are to be 
reduced in size, they are passed through a crumbler, or granulator. 
This machine is a roller mill with corrugated rolls. Crumbles must be 
screened to remove fines and oversized materials. The product is sent 
to storage bins and then bagged or shipped in bulk.
    In modern feed mills, transport equipment is often connected with 
closed spouting and turnheads, covered drag and screw conveyors, and 
tightly sealed transitions between adjoining equipment to reduce 
internal dust loss and consequent housekeeping costs. Some older 
facilities have also upgraded to these closed systems.
    Emission sources where chromium compound and manganese compound 
emissions may occur include handling and storage of these compounds, 
mixing, storage of the meal or mash, steam conditioning, pelleting and 
pellet cooling, crumbling and screening, bagging, and bulk shipment 
loading to trucks or rail cars. Pelleting and pellet cooling is the 
most significant source of emissions, estimated to emit 90 percent or 
more of the total chromium compound and manganese compound emissions.
    The chromium compounds and manganese compounds emitted comprise a 
small fraction of the total particulate matter (PM) emissions from 
prepared feed mills. Fabric filters and cyclones are commonly used to 
control PM, including the chromium compounds and manganese compounds, 
from the pelleting and pellet cooling process. These control devices 
are also used less frequently for other processes at prepared feed mill 
facilities. For some processes and areas, facilities use the pollution 
prevention technique of closed loop systems that return collected PM 
(including chromium compounds and manganese compounds) to the process. 
We believe that over half of the facilities have these closed loop 
systems for their mixing/grinding processes and for their conveyers. 
Common management practices that reduce chromium compound and manganese 
compound emissions include continual housekeeping to reduce dust that 
might contain these HAP compounds by vacuuming or sweeping, keeping 
doors closed to prevent air flow that would ``stir-up'' dust, 
preventative equipment maintenance, careful handling of chromium- and 
manganese-containing micronutrients, and the use of devices to reduce 
emissions during the loading of product on to trucks and railcars.

III. Summary of This Proposed Rule

A. What are the applicability provisions and compliance dates?

    The proposed subpart DDDDDDD standards would apply to each new or 
existing prepared feeds manufacturing facility that is an area source 
and adds chromium compounds or manganese compounds to any of their 
products.
    All existing area source facilities subject to this proposed rule 
would be required to comply with the rule requirements no later than 
two years after the date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register. Based on our assessment, there will be around 32 
facilities that will need to evaluate, purchase, and install add-on 
control equipment for their pelleting operations. We believe that the 
two-year period provides sufficient time for this to occur. In 
addition, since the vast majority of the companies in this area source 
category are small businesses and may not have significant experience 
complying with federal rules, we believe that this time period would 
also provide opportunity for all companies to prepare adequately.
    A new source is any affected source that commences construction or 
reconstruction after July 27, 2009. All new sources would be required 
to comply with the rule requirements by the date of publication of the 
final rule in the Federal Register or upon startup, whichever is later.

B. What are the proposed standards?

    The proposed standards include management practices and equipment 
standards that will reduce emissions of chromium compounds and 
manganese compounds at prepared feed manufacturing facilities. These 
practices and standards will also result in reductions of PM and other 
metal HAP emissions from the affected processes at prepared feed 
manufacturing facilities.
    The proposed requirements, which apply to all new and existing 
sources, consist of general management practices that apply in all 
areas of the affected sources and requirements for specific processes 
or areas of an affected source. One proposed general management 
practice that would apply to all new and existing sources in all areas 
of the affected source is minimizing excess dust that could contain 
chromium compounds or manganese compounds. This would be achieved 
through practices including, but not limited to, the use of industrial 
vacuum systems or manual sweeping; monthly dust removal from walls, 
ledges, and equipment using low pressure air or by other means and then 
sweeping or vacuuming the area; and by keeping doors shut. The second 
general management practice is the requirement to maintain and operate 
all process equipment that stores, processes, or contains chromium 
compounds or

[[Page 36984]]

manganese compounds in a manner to minimize dust creation.
    The proposed requirements that would apply to all new and existing 
sources which are specific to certain areas of the plant or processes 
are as follows:
     For the storage area, all raw materials containing 
chromium compounds or manganese compounds must be stored in closed 
containers.
     For mixing operations, materials containing chromium 
compounds or manganese compounds must be added to the mixer in a manner 
to reduce emissions, and the mixer must be covered at all times when 
mixing is occurring, except when materials are being added.
     For bulk loading operations, filter drop socks must be 
used when loading product containing chromium compounds or manganese 
compounds into trucks or railcars.
    In addition to the above requirements that apply to all facilities, 
new and existing facilities with average daily feed production levels 
exceeding 50 tons per day would be required to install and operate a 
cyclone to reduce emissions from pelleting and pellet cooling 
operations. Specifically, the proposed rule would require that 
emissions of PM that include chromium compounds or manganese compounds 
would be required to be collected and routed to a cyclone that is 
designed to achieve at least 95 percent reduction in PM less than 10 
microns in diameter (PM10) and that is operated properly and in 
accordance with the equipment manufacturers specifications.

C. What are the compliance requirements?

    For all new and existing sources, compliance with the proposed 
regulation would be demonstrated through installation of the required 
equipment, adherence to the management practices, and by keeping the 
required records and submitting the required notifications and reports 
described below.
    To ensure that the cyclone for the pelleting and pellet cooling 
process is operated properly at facilities with average daily feed 
production levels exceeding 50 tons per day, the proposed rule would 
require that the cyclone be inspected quarterly for corrosion, erosion, 
or any other damage that could result in air in-leakage, and that the 
pressure drop be monitored and recorded daily to ensure that it is 
being operated in accordance with the equipment manufacturer's 
specifications.
    The proposed rule would also require that the filter drop socks on 
the bulk loading operations be inspected monthly to ensure that they 
are in good condition.

D. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?

    All new and existing sources would be required to comply with some 
requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), 
which are identified in Table 1 of this proposed rule. The General 
Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, 
recordkeeping, and reporting. Each facility would be required to submit 
an Initial Notification and a one-time Notification of Compliance 
Status according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 in the General 
Provisions. The Initial Notification, which would be required to be 
submitted not later than 120 days after the final rule is published in 
the Federal Register, would contain basic information about the 
facility and its operations. The Notification of Compliance Status, 
which would be required to be submitted 120 days after the compliance 
date, would contain a statement that the source has complied with all 
relevant standards. It would also be required to include the pressure 
drop range that constitutes proper operation of the cyclone used to 
reduce emissions from the pelleting and pellet cooling operations.
    The proposed rule would require that records be kept of all 
notifications. The proposed rule requires that records be kept 
documenting each cyclone or drop filter sock inspection, and each 
pressure drop monitoring event. The proposed rule further requires that 
a record be created monthly that certifies that all management 
practices have been followed. The records must also include the results 
of each inspection (including any actions taken in response to findings 
of the inspections), and each monitoring event. The proposed rule 
includes the requirement to prepare an annual compliance certification, 
which would need to be maintained on site. This report would contain a 
statement whether the source has complied with all relevant standards 
and other requirements of the final rule. If a deviation from the 
standard occurred during the annual reporting period, or if an instance 
occurred where the cyclone pressure drop was outside of the proper 
operating range submitted in the Notification of Compliance Status 
report, this information would be required to be included in the annual 
report and the report would need to be submitted to the EPA 
Administrator or the designated authority by March 15 of the same year. 
All records are required to be maintained in a form suitable and 
readily available for expeditious review, and that they are kept for at 
least five years, the first two of which must be onsite.

IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule

A. How did we select the affected source?

    Affected source means the collection of equipment and processes in 
the source category or subcategory to which the subpart applies. The 
affected source may be the same collection of equipment and processes 
as the source category or it may be a subset of the source category. We 
are proposing to designate as the affected source in this area source 
NESHAP those prepared feeds manufacturing operations that emit chromium 
compounds and manganese compounds. Specifically, the proposed rule 
defines the affected source as the collection of all equipment and 
activities necessary to perform prepared feeds manufacturing operations 
from the point in the process where chromium compounds or manganese 
compounds are added to the point where the finished prepared feed 
product leaves the facility. This includes, but is not limited to, 
areas where materials containing chromium compounds and manganese 
compounds are stored and areas where the chromium compounds and 
manganese compounds are temporarily stored prior to addition to the 
feed at the mixer, as well as mixing and grinding processes, pelleting 
and pellet cooling processes, packing and bagging processes, crumblers 
and screens, bulk loading operations, and all conveyors and other 
equipment that transfer the feed materials throughout the manufacturing 
facility.

B. How did we ensure that the listed HAP are addressed by this rule?

    In selecting the proposed emission standards, we are using PM as a 
surrogate for chromium compounds and manganese compounds. A sufficient 
correlation exists between PM and chromium compounds and manganese 
compounds to rely on PM as a surrogate for these HAP and for their 
control. When released, chromium compounds and manganese compounds are 
in particle form and behave as PM. The control technologies used for 
the control of PM emissions achieve comparable levels of performance on 
chromium compounds and manganese compounds emissions. Therefore, 
standards requiring good control of PM also

[[Page 36985]]

achieve good control of chromium compounds and manganese compounds. 
Furthermore, establishing chromium compound and manganese compound 
standards would impose costly and significantly more complex compliance 
and monitoring requirements and achieve little, if any, HAP emissions 
reductions beyond what would be achieved using an approach based on 
total PM control. Therefore, we decided to propose standards for 
prepared feeds manufacturing based on control of PM as a surrogate 
pollutant for chromium compounds and manganese compounds.

C. How did we subcategorize the Prepared Feeds Manufacturing source 
category?

    As part of the GACT analysis, we considered whether there were 
differences in processes, sizes, or other factors affecting emissions 
and control technologies that would warrant subcategorization of the 
Prepared feeds manufacturing area source category. Under section 
112(d)(1) of the CAA, EPA ``may distinguish among classes, types, and 
sizes within a source category or subcategory in establishing such 
standards''. In our review of available data, we observed differences 
between prepared feeds manufacturing facilities based on production 
levels. We estimate that the emissions for a typical small facility are 
only around 10 percent of the level of emissions at a typical larger 
facility.\1\ There are also considerable differences in the emission 
stream flow rates at larger facilities, as they are, on average, around 
five times greater than the flow rates at the smaller facilities.\2\ 
Based on these differences, we determined that subcategorization of the 
Prepared Feeds Manufacturing source category was justified. 
Consequently, we are proposing to subcategorize the Prepared Feeds 
Manufacturing source category into ``small'' and ``large'' facilities. 
The proposed threshold that we selected to distinguish between large 
and small facilities is a prepared feeds manufacturing rate of 50 tons 
per day, which as the record demonstrates, represents the 
characteristics mentioned above. We are specifically requesting comment 
on whether this production rate is the most appropriate level to define 
the differences between the small and large prepared feeds 
manufacturing subcategories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Memorandum. Jones, N. and Norwood, P., EC/R Incorporated, to 
King, J., EPA/OAQPS/OID. Baseline Emissions for the Prepared Feeds 
Manufacturing Area Source Category. February 27, 2009.
    \2\ Memorandum. Jones, N. and Norwood, P., EC/R Incorporated, to 
King, J., EPA/OAQPS/OID. Summary of Information Obtained from 
Industry Survey for the Prepared Feeds Manufacturing Area Source 
Category. February 27, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. How did we determine GACT?

    As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), we are proposing standards 
representing GACT for the prepared feeds manufacturing source HAP 
emissions. As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the statute 
allows the Agency to establish standards for area sources listed 
pursuant to section 112(c) based on GACT. The statute does not set any 
condition precedent for issuing standards under section 112(d)(5) other 
than that the area source category or subcategory at issue must be one 
that EPA listed pursuant to section 112(c), which is the case here.
    As noted above, we solicited information on the available controls 
and management practices for this area source category using written 
facility surveys, reviews of published literature, and reviews of 
operating permits. We also held discussions with trade association and 
industry representatives. Our determination of GACT is based on this 
information. We also considered costs and economic impacts in 
determining GACT.
    We identified two general management practices that reduce chromium 
compound and manganese compound emissions for all processes and in all 
areas of small and large prepared feed manufacturing facilities. The 
first were continual housekeeping practices to reduce dust that can 
contain chromium compounds and manganese compounds. Examples of these 
housekeeping practices include removing dust with industrial vacuum 
systems or by manual sweeping; periodically removing dust from walls, 
ledges, and equipment using low pressure air or by other means and then 
sweeping or vacuuming the area; and keeping doors closed to avoid 
spreading dust throughout the facility. The second management practice 
identified was the proper maintenance and operation of all process 
equipment that stores, processes, or contains chromium compounds or 
manganese compounds to minimize dust creation.
    We believe that every prepared feed facility already employs these 
practices. Therefore, the proposed rule includes these general 
practices as GACT for small and large prepared feeds manufacturing 
facilities. We are, however, requesting comment on the particular 
requirements listed above under the first management practice 
(vacuuming/sweeping, removing dust from walls, etc., and keeping doors 
closed). Specifically, we would like to know if there are additional 
general management practices that are commonly used throughout prepared 
feeds manufacturing facilities that should be included in this list of 
requirements. We are also asking for specific maintenance activities 
and operational practices that would be appropriate to include that 
would strengthen the second general management practice.
    In addition, we evaluated other process-specific or area-specific 
measures and controls in our analysis. The following discussion is 
organized according to these processes/areas.
    Storage Areas. For those facilities that provided information on 
the area where micronutrients containing chromium compounds and 
manganese compounds are stored, 100 percent of both large and small 
prepared feeds manufacturing facilities reported that these materials 
were stored in closed containers. There were no other measures or 
controls reported. Therefore, in addition to the general requirements 
to minimize dust and maintain equipment throughout the facility, we 
determined that GACT for the storage areas at small and large 
facilities included the requirement that any raw materials containing 
chromium compounds or manganese compounds be stored in closed 
containers.
    Mixing Processes. Facilities routinely are careful to minimize 
losses during the mixing process of the expensive micronutrients that 
contain chromium compounds and manganese compounds. This also minimizes 
chromium compound and manganese compound emissions. The measures 
employed include adding materials carefully and keeping the mixer 
covered after they are added when mixing is occurring. We believe that 
every prepared feed facility employs these practices and that they 
represent GACT.
    In addition, control devices to reduce emissions from mixing 
operations were reported in a few instances (24 percent of facilities 
surveyed). We estimated the cost effectiveness of requiring the 
uncontrolled mixing operations to install add-on controls at small 
prepared feeds manufacturing facilities to be around $127 million per 
ton of chromium compound and manganese compound emission reduction and 
$380,000 and $1.6 million per ton of PM and PM2.5, 
respectively. For the larger facilities, we estimated the cost 
effectiveness to be around $18 million per ton of chromium and 
manganese compound emission reduction, $55,000 per ton of PM reduction, 
and $240,000 per ton of PM2.5 reduction. Because only a 
minority of facilities have installed these control devices and because 
the

[[Page 36986]]

cost effectiveness is higher than we generally consider reasonable, we 
are not proposing that add-on control represents GACT for mixing 
operations. Therefore, in addition to the general requirements to 
minimize dust and maintain equipment throughout the facility, we are 
proposing that GACT for the mixing processes at small and large 
prepared feeds manufacturing facilities include the requirements to (1) 
add materials containing chromium compounds or manganese compounds to 
the mixer in a manner that minimizes emissions, and (2) cover the mixer 
at all times when materials containing chromium compounds or manganese 
compounds are being used. We are asking for comment on specific 
measures that would be appropriate to include to strengthen the 
proposed requirement to minimize emissions when materials are being 
added to the mixer.
    Pelleting and pellet cooling. For pelleting and pellet cooling 
processes, add-on controls were reported for almost 98 percent of the 
larger facilities, but only around 20 percent of the smaller facilities 
For the larger facilities, we estimated that requiring the additional 2 
percent of the larger facilities to install cyclones would cost around 
$300,000 per ton of chromium compound and manganese compound reduction, 
$1,000 per ton of PM emission reduction, and $4,000 per ton of 
PM2.5 reduction. We concluded that these costs were 
reasonable in consideration of the emission reductions achieved, and 
determined that the use of cyclones to reduce emissions from pelleting 
cooling operations was GACT for large prepared feeds manufacturing 
facilities. Therefore, in addition to the general requirements to 
minimize dust and maintain equipment throughout the facility, we are 
proposing that GACT for large prepared feeds manufacturing facilities 
include the requirements that all chromium compound and manganese 
compound emissions from pelleting and pellet cooling operations must be 
captured and routed to a cyclone. The information provided via the 
industry survey did not include specific details about the performance 
of these cyclones, but we believe that properly designed cyclones 
should be able to achieve 95 percent reduction in PM emissions. This 
belief is based on follow-up of the survey responses and information 
obtained from cyclone vendors. Therefore, we are proposing that the 
cyclones be designed to achieve at least 95 percent reduction in PM10. 
We are specifically requesting comment on this 95 percent efficiency 
requirement. In addition, we are requesting comment on whether control 
devices other than cyclones are used to reduce PM emissions from 
pelleting and pellet cooling. If other devices are used, we would 
request information that demonstrates that these devices are at least 
equivalent to the required cyclones, and the monitoring techniques 
utilized to ensure that they are operating properly.
    We also evaluated the impacts of requiring the installation of 
cyclones at all facilities in the small prepared feeds manufacturing 
subcategory. As noted above, the available information suggests that 
around 80 percent of these smaller facilities do not control PM 
emissions from their pelleting and pellet cooling process. We estimated 
the cost effectiveness to be around $1 million per ton of chromium and 
manganese compound emission reduction, $4,000 per ton of PM emission 
reduction, and $20,000 per ton of PM2.5 reduction. We 
estimated that the annual cost of installing and operating a cyclone at 
one of these small facilities would be around $58,000 per year. Our 
economic impacts assessment indicates that annual costs of this 
magnitude could represent over 5 percent of the total annual sales for 
a smaller prepared feeds manufacturing facility. We concluded that the 
adverse economic impacts do not justify a determination requiring 
cyclones for the small prepared feeds manufacturing subcategory. 
Therefore, we are proposing that GACT for small prepared feeds 
manufacturing facilities as only the general management practices to 
minimize dust and maintain equipment.
    Bagging. The information provided by facilities also indicated that 
add-on controls, primarily fabric filters, are used to reduce emissions 
from bagging operations at prepared feeds manufacturing facilities. The 
available information suggests that around \1/3\ of the smaller 
facilities and over 90 percent of the larger facilities control the 
emissions from the bagging processes. We evaluated the impacts of the 
installation and operation of fabric filters at the remaining 
facilities, and estimated that, for the smaller facilities, the total 
capital costs would be over $7 million and the total annual costs would 
be over $16 million per year. Since bagging is a relatively small 
source of emissions, the cost effectiveness for these controls would be 
around $255 million per ton of chromium and manganese compound 
reduction, over $750,000 per ton of PM emission reduction, and $3.3 
million per ton of PM2.5 reduction. We concluded that these 
cost effectiveness values were too high to be considered GACT. 
Therefore, for bagging operations at smaller prepared feeds 
manufacturing facilities, the proposed rule would require that the 
general requirements to minimize dust and maintain equipment throughout 
the facility be followed, but would not require the installation and 
operation of add-on control.
    For the larger facilities, we estimated that the total capital 
costs would be over $10 million and the total annual costs would be 
over $13 million per year. The cost effectiveness for these controls at 
these larger facilities would be around $37 million per ton of chromium 
and manganese compound reduction, over $100,000 per ton of PM emission 
reduction, and around $500,000 per ton of PM2.5 reduction. 
We concluded that, although a significant portion of the existing large 
facilities control emissions from bagging, these cost effectiveness 
values were too high to be considered GACT. Therefore, for bagging 
operations at larger prepared feeds manufacturing facilities, the 
proposed rule would also only require that the general requirements to 
minimize dust and maintain equipment throughout the facility be 
followed.
    Bulk loading. Based on the industry surveys, we believe that every 
facility uses drop filter socks to reduce dust and the loss of product 
during the loading of railcars and trucks. We determined that this 
equipment represents GACT for bulk loading operations at both small and 
large facilities. Therefore, in addition to the general requirements to 
minimize dust and maintain equipment throughout the facility, we are 
proposing that GACT for bulk loading include the requirement to install 
drop filter socks for small and large prepared feeds manufacturing 
facilities.

E. How did we select the compliance requirements?

    In order to ensure that the cyclones on the pelleting and pellet 
cooling operations remain effective in reducing chromium compounds and 
manganese compounds, we are proposing that these cyclones be operated 
and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. We 
are also proposing that these cyclones be inspected monthly and that 
the pressure drop be monitored daily and recorded. Similarly, we are 
requiring that the drop filter socks on the bulk loading operations be 
inspected monthly to ensure they are in good condition and functioning 
properly.
    We are proposing certain notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements. Those requirements are described in detail in section 
III.D. In

[[Page 36987]]

selecting these requirements, we identified the information necessary 
to ensure that management practices are being followed and that 
emission control devices and equipment are maintained and operated 
properly. The proposed requirements ensure compliance with this 
proposed rule without posing a significant additional burden for 
facilities that must implement them.

F. How did we decide to exempt this area source category from Title V 
permit requirements?

    We are proposing exemption from title V permitting requirements for 
affected sources in the prepared feeds manufacturing area source 
category for the reasons described below.
    Section 502(a) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may 
exempt an area source category from title V if he determines that 
compliance with title V requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or 
unnecessarily burdensome'' on an area source category. See CAA section 
502(a). In December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the 
term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and developed a 
four-factor balancing test for determining whether title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category, such 
that an exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, 
December 19, 2005 (``Exemption Rule'').
    The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for 
determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' on a 
particular area source category include: (1) Whether title V would 
result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements, 
including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed 
for an area source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V 
permitting would impose significant burdens on the area source category 
and whether the burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the 
sources may have in obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 
FR 75324); (3) whether the costs of title V permitting for the area 
source category would be justified, taking into consideration any 
potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR 
75325); and (4) whether there are implementation and enforcement 
programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the 
NESHAP for the area source category, without relying on title V permits 
(70 FR 75326).
    In discussing these factors in the Exemption Rule, we further 
explained that we considered on ``a case-by-case basis the extent to 
which one or more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for 
a given source category, and then we assessed whether considered 
together those factors demonstrated that compliance with title V 
requirements would be `unnecessarily burdensome' on the category, 
consistent with section 502(a) of the Act.'' See 70 FR 75323. Thus, in 
the Exemption Rule, we explained that not all of the four factors must 
weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to determine that title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category. 
Instead, the factors are to be considered in combination, and EPA 
determines whether the factors, taken together, support an exemption 
from title V for a particular source category.
    In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether 
compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome 
on an area source category, we considered, consistent with the guidance 
provided by the legislative history of section 502(a), whether 
exempting the area source category would adversely affect public 
health, welfare or the environment. See 70 FR 15254-15255, March 25, 
2005. As explained below, we propose that title V permitting is 
unreasonably burdensome for the area source category at issue in this 
proposed rule. We have also determined that the proposed exemptions 
from title V would not adversely affect public health, welfare and the 
environment. Our rationale for this decision follows here.
    In considering the exemption from title V requirements for sources 
in the category affected by this proposed rule, we first compared the 
title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements (factor 
one) to the requirements in the proposed NESHAP for the area source 
category. The proposed rule requires implementation of certain 
management practices and the use of add on controls for one process. We 
believe these practices are currently used at all facilities and the 
controls are in use at most facilities. The proposed rule requires 
direct monitoring of control device parameters, recordkeeping that also 
may serve as monitoring, and deviation and other annual reporting to 
assure compliance with these requirements.
    The monitoring component of the first factor favors title V 
exemption. For the management practices, this proposed standard 
provides monitoring in the form of recordkeeping that would assure 
compliance with the requirements of the proposed rule. Monitoring by 
means other than recordkeeping for the management practices is not 
practical or appropriate. Records are required to ensure that the 
management practices are followed. The rule requires continuous 
parameter monitoring and periodic recording of the parameter for the 
required control device to assure compliance. The proposed rule 
requires the owner or operator to record the date and results of 
periodic control device inspections, as well as any actions taken in 
response to findings of the inspections. The records are required to be 
maintained in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious 
review, and that they are kept for at least five years, the first two 
of which must be onsite.
    As part of the first factor, in addition to monitoring, we 
considered the extent to which title V could potentially enhance 
compliance for area sources covered by this proposed rule through 
recordkeeping or reporting requirements. We have considered the various 
title V recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including 
requirements for a 6-month monitoring report, deviation reports, and an 
annual certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6.
    For any prepared feeds manufacturing area source, this proposed 
NESHAP requires an Initial Notification and a Notification of 
Compliance Status. This proposed rule also requires facilities to 
certify compliance with the control device and management practices. In 
addition, facilities must maintain records showing compliance through 
the required parameter monitoring and deviation requirements. The 
information required in the deviation reports is similar to the 
information that must be provided in the deviation reports required 
under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3).
    We acknowledge that title V might impose additional compliance 
requirements on this category, but we have determined that the 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the proposed 
NESHAP are sufficient to assure compliance with the provisions of the 
NESHAP, and title V would not significantly improve those compliance 
requirements.
    For the second factor, we determine whether title V permitting 
would impose a significant burden on the area sources in the category 
and whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the 
source may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency. 
Subjecting any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and 
costs that do not exist outside of the title V program. EPA estimated 
that the average cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit 
was $38,500 per

[[Page 36988]]

source for a 5-year permit period, including fees. See Information 
Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, January 
2000, EPA ICR Number 1587.05. EPA does not have specific estimates for 
the burdens and costs of permitting these types of prepared feeds 
manufacturing area sources; however, there are certain activities 
associated with the part 70 and 71 rules. These activities are 
mandatory and impose burdens on any facility subject to title V. They 
include reading and understanding permit program guidance and 
regulations; obtaining and understanding permit application forms; 
answering follow-up questions from permitting authorities after the 
application is submitted; reviewing and understanding the permit; 
collecting records; preparing and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-
month or more frequent basis; preparing and submitting prompt deviation 
reports, as defined by the State, which may include a combination of 
written, verbal, and other communications methods; collecting 
information, preparing, and submitting the annual compliance 
certification; preparing applications for permit revisions every 5 
years; and, as needed, preparing and submitting applications for permit 
revisions. In addition, although not required by the permit rules, many 
sources obtain the contractual services of consultants to help them 
understand and meet the permitting program's requirements. The ICR for 
part 70 provides additional information on the overall burdens and 
costs, as well as the relative burdens of each activity described here. 
Also, for a more comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70 
sources (hence, burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR 
70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7.
    In assessing the second factor for facilities affected by this 
proposal, we found that many of the facilities that would be affected 
by this proposed rule are small entities. These small sources lack the 
technical resources that would be needed to comply with permitting 
requirements and the financial resources that would be needed to hire 
the necessary staff or outside consultants. As discussed above, title V 
permitting would impose significant costs on these area sources, and, 
accordingly, we conclude that title V is a significant burden for 
sources in this category. Furthermore, given the number of sources in 
the category, it would likely be difficult for them to obtain 
sufficient assistance from the permitting authority. Thus, we conclude 
that factor two supports title V exemption for this category.
    The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is 
whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be 
justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance 
likely to occur for such sources. We explained above under the second 
factor that the costs of compliance with title V would impose a 
significant burden on many of the approximately 450 facilities affected 
by the proposed rule. We also concluded in considering the first factor 
that, while title V might impose additional requirements, the 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the proposed 
NESHAP assure compliance with the emission standards imposed in the 
NESHAP. In addition, below in our consideration of the fourth factor, 
we find that there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs 
in place to assure compliance with the NESHAP. Because the costs, both 
economic and non-economic, of compliance with title V are high, and the 
potential for gains in compliance is low, title V permitting is not 
justified for this source category. Accordingly, the third factor 
supports title V exemptions for this area source category.
    The fourth factor we considered in determining if title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome is whether there are implementation and 
enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance 
with the NESHAP without relying on title V permits. EPA has implemented 
regulations that provide States the opportunity to take delegation of 
area source NESHAP, and we believe that State delegated programs are 
sufficient to assure compliance with this NESHAP. See 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E (States must have adequate programs to enforce the section 
112 regulations and provide assurances that they will enforce the 
NESHAP before EPA will delegate the program).
    We also noted that EPA retains authority to enforce this NESHAP 
anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. Also, States and EPA often 
conduct voluntary compliance assistance, outreach, and education 
programs (compliance assistance programs), which are not required by 
statute. We determined that these additional programs will supplement 
and enhance the success of compliance with these proposed standards. We 
believe that the statutory requirements for implementation and 
enforcement of this NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA and the 
additional assistance programs described above together are sufficient 
to assure compliance with these proposed standards without relying on 
title V permitting.
    In light of all the information presented here, we believe that 
there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are 
sufficient to assure compliance with the proposed standards without 
relying on title V permitting.
    Balancing the four factors for this area source category strongly 
supports the proposed finding that title V is unnecessarily burdensome. 
While title V might add additional compliance requirements if imposed, 
we believe that there would not be significant improvements to the 
compliance requirements in this proposed rule because the proposed rule 
requirements are specifically designed to assure compliance with the 
emission standards imposed on this area source category. We further 
maintain that the economic and non-economic costs of compliance with 
title V would impose a significant burden on the sources. We determined 
that the high relative costs would not be justified given that there is 
likely to be little or no potential gain in compliance if title V were 
required. And, finally, there are adequate implementation and 
enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with these proposed 
standards. Thus, we propose that title V permitting is ``unnecessarily 
burdensome'' for this area source category.
    In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V 
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome'', EPA also considered, 
consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section 
502(a), whether exempting this area source category from title V 
requirements would adversely affect public health, welfare, or the 
environment. Exemption of this area source category from title V 
requirements would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the 
environment because the level of control would remain the same if a 
permit were required. The title V permit program does not impose new 
substantive air quality control requirements on sources, but instead 
requires that certain procedural measures be followed, particularly 
with respect to determining compliance with applicable requirements. As 
stated in our consideration of factor one for this category, title V 
would not lead to significant improvements in the compliance 
requirements applicable to existing or new area sources.
    Furthermore, we explained in the Exemption Rule that requiring 
permits

[[Page 36989]]

for the large number of area sources could, at least in the first few 
years of implementation, potentially adversely affect public health, 
welfare, or the environment by shifting State agency resources away 
from assuring compliance for major sources with existing permits to 
issuing new permits for these area sources, potentially reducing 
overall air program effectiveness. Based on the above analysis, we 
conclude that title V exemptions for these area sources will not 
adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment for all of 
the reasons explained above.
    For the reasons stated here, we are proposing to exempt this area 
source category from title V permitting requirements.

V. Summary of Impacts of the Proposed Standards

    We project that the baseline PM emissions from the estimated 1,800 
facilities in the prepared feeds source category are around 32,000 
tons/yr, with around 7,500 tons/yr of PM2.5, 100 tons/yr of 
manganese compounds and just under 2 tons/yr of chromium compounds. We 
believe that the management practices in the proposed rule are already 
being implemented throughout the industry. Therefore, we do not expect 
any additional reductions in chromium compound, manganese compound, or 
general PM emissions from these measures. We estimate that the 
requirement to install cyclones on the pelleting processes at the 
facilities with daily production levels exceeding 50 tons per day will 
result in emission reductions of around 4,000 tons/yr of PM, 900 tons/
yr of PM2.5, and around 11 tons/yr of manganese compounds 
and chromium compounds emissions. While cyclones do remove PM from the 
air stream, these solids are typically recycled back to the process. 
Therefore, we do not anticipate any significant indirect or secondary 
air impacts of this rule as proposed. In addition, we do not expect any 
non-air health, environmental, or energy impacts.
    As noted above, we believe all prepared feed manufacturing 
facilities already implement the proposed management practices. 
Therefore, there will be no additional costs for these measures. We 
estimate that the nationwide capital costs for the installation of 
cyclones on the pelleting cooling operations at the large facilities 
will be just over $3 million. The associated annual costs are estimated 
to be just under $4 million/year.
    Many of the plants in this analysis have fewer than 500 employees, 
which is the threshold to be considered ``small'' by the Small Business 
Administration. It is currently estimated only around 2 percent of the 
facilities in the category would potentially need to change under the 
proposed regulatory alternative. The potential impact on the industry 
as a percentage of the value of shipments is small. Under the proposed 
regulatory alternative, the largest potential impact is estimated as