National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area Source Standards for Prepared Feeds Manufacturing, 522-551 [E9-30498]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 522-551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30498]



[[Page 521]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



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

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 522]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0080; FRL-9095-2]
RIN 2060-AO98


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing national emission standards for control of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) for the Prepared Feeds Manufacturing 
area source category. The emissions standards for new and existing 
sources are based on EPA's determination as to what constitutes the 
generally available control technology or management practices for the 
area source category.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 5, 2010.

ADDRESSES: 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 https://www.regulations.gov.index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, 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 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: 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: The supplementary information in this 
preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
    B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information for This Final Rule
III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
    A. Applicability
    B. Standards and Compliance Requirements
    C. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
    D. Definitions
IV. Summary of Final Standards
    A. What Are the Applicability Provisions and Compliance Dates?
    B. What Are the Final Standards?
    C. What Are the Compliance Requirements?
    D. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?
V. Summary of Comments and Responses
    A. Rulemaking Process
    B. Applicability
    C. Emission Standards
    D. Inspections and Compliance Provisions
    E. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
    F. Definitions
    G. Impacts Assessment
    H. Title V Requirements
VI. Impacts of the Final Standards
VII. 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
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by the 
final 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 representative as listed 
in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).

B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) 
through EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 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: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology 
exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review 
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
by March 8, 2010. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any 
civil or criminal proceedings

[[Page 523]]

brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate 
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the 
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose 
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for 
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the 
outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration 
to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the 
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation 
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background Information for This Final Rule

    Section 112(d) of the CAA requires EPA to establish national 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for both major 
and area sources of 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 (tpy) or more of any single HAP or 25 tpy 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, (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. We implemented these requirements through the Integrated 
Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). 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. This is particularly important 
when developing regulations for source categories, like this one, that 
have many small businesses, as defined by the Small Business 
Administration.
    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 promulgating these national emission standards in response 
to a court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to sign final rules 
establishing emission standards for two source categories listed 
pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k) by December 16, 2009 (Sierra Club 
v. Johnson, no. 01-1537, D.D.C., March 2006). We intend to publish a 
separate rulemaking in the Federal Register for the other source 
category due in December 2009.

III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal

    This final rule contains several changes to the proposed rule as a 
result of public comments. The following sections present a summary of 
the changes to the proposed rule. We explain the reasons for these 
changes in detail in the summary of comments and responses (section V 
of this preamble).

A. Applicability

    The final rule applies to any prepared feeds manufacturing facility 
that produces animal feed products (not including cat and dog feed 
products) and uses a material containing chromium or a material 
containing manganese. In light of questions raised concerning the scope 
of sources covered by this area source rule, we revised several 
definitions in the rule and added other definitions. The prepared feeds 
manufacturing area source category is identified by NAICS code 311119, 
``Other Animal Food Manufacturing.'' This NAICS code includes 
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing animal feed (except 
dog and cat) from ingredients, such as grains, oilseed mill products, 
and meat products. The NAICS definition also contains a list of over 40 
specific animal feed processes that are included in the NAICS code. 
First, we added a definition of ``animal feed,'' and defined that term 
to include all of the products in NAICS code 311119. This definition 
also clarifies that dog and cat feed products are not considered animal 
feed, consistent with the NAICS definition. The final rule, therefore, 
applies not only to ``traditional'' feed products, but also to animal 
feed ingredients, supplements, premixes, concentrates, and other 
products included in the definition of NAICS code 311119. Second, we 
revised the definition of a ``prepared feed manufacturing facility'' to 
include the concept of ``primarily engaged.'' To meet the definition of 
a prepared feeds manufacturing facility, a facility must be ``primarily 
engaged'' in the production of animal feed. We identified that 
primarily engaged in the production of animal feed means that the 
animal feed makes up at least half of the facility's annual production 
of all products. The definition of prepared feed manufacturing facility 
explicitly states that facilities primarily engaged in feeding animals 
are not prepared feed manufacturing facilities. We also added 
definitions for ``a material containing chromium'' and ``a material 
containing

[[Page 524]]

manganese.'' ``A material containing chromium'' is defined as any 
material that contains chromium in an amount greater than 0.1 percent 
by weight, and ``a material containing manganese'' is defined as any 
material that contains manganese in an amount greater than 1 percent by 
weight. We added a requirement to provide for the situation where a 
facility starts using a material containing chromium or manganese after 
the applicable compliance date. Specifically, facilities that are not 
subject to the rule but start adding materials containing chromium or 
manganese in the future become subject to the rule at the time they 
begin adding these HAP. While the rule does not apply to prepared feeds 
manufacturing facilities that do not use any materials containing 
chromium or manganese, we added provisions that make it clear that 
facilities that stop using all materials containing chromium and 
manganese at a later date are no longer subject to the rule.

B. Standards and Compliance Requirements

    The final rule retains the specific housekeeping management 
practices discussed in the proposed rule. Those management practices 
must reduce dust (use industrial vacuum, remove dust from walls and 
ledges, keep doors shut). The only change we made to these provisions 
was to require that doors be kept shut except during normal ingress and 
egress, rather than the proposed requirement to keep doors shut ``as 
practicable.''
    The final rule requires that a device be installed and operated at 
the loadout end of each bulk loader that loads products containing 
chromium or manganese to lessen fugitive emissions by reducing the 
distance between the loading arm and the truck or railcar. This is a 
change from the proposed requirements, which specified that ``drop 
filter socks'' be used on bulk loaders.
    The final rule requires that emissions from the pelleting process 
at facilities with an average daily feed production level exceeding 50 
tons per day (tpd) be collected and routed to a cyclone designed to 
achieve 95 percent or greater reduction in particulate matter (PM) 
emissions. This is a change from the proposed rule, which required a 
cyclone designed to achieve a 95 percent reduction in particulate 
matter emissions less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). To 
demonstrate that your cyclone is designed to achieve a 95 percent 
reduction in PM emissions, the final rule provides three different 
options: (1) Manufacturer's specifications certifying that the cyclone 
is designed to achieve 95 percent PM reduction, (2) certification by a 
professional engineer or responsible official that the cyclone is 
designed to achieve a 95 percent reduction in PM emissions, or (3) a 
Method 5 performance test to demonstrate that the cyclone can achieve a 
95 percent reduction in PM emissions.
    The proposed rule required that the pressure drop across the 
cyclone be monitored to demonstrate that the device was in good 
condition and operating properly. The final rule expands the monitoring 
options to include other measures that indicate proper flow through the 
cyclone. Specifically, the final rule allows monitoring of inlet flow 
rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage.

C. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    The final rule requires that all sources that have an average daily 
feed production level of 50 tpd or less to keep production records. 
These facilities must also submit their initial average daily feed 
production level in the Notification of Compliance Status report.
    We added recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with 
the new options on demonstrating cyclone performance efficiency 
(certification by professional engineer or responsible official, or 
testing). We also added provisions that require facilities that 
discontinue the use of all materials containing chromium and manganese 
to notify the Agency that they are no longer subject to the rule.

D. Definitions

    As discussed above, definitions for animal feed, a material 
containing chromium, a material containing manganese, and prepared 
feeds manufacturing facility were added or modified. The definition of 
filter drop sock was removed, as this term is no longer used in the 
final rule.

IV. Summary of Final Standards

A. What Are the Applicability Provisions and Compliance Dates?

    Subpart DDDDDDD standards apply to each new or existing prepared 
feeds manufacturing facility that is an area source and uses a material 
containing chromium or a material containing manganese. A prepared 
feeds manufacturing facility is a facility where animal feed (as 
defined in the rule) makes up at least half of the facility's annual 
production of all products. A material containing chromium is any 
material that contains chromium in an amount greater than 0.1 percent 
by weight, and a material containing manganese is any material that 
contains manganese in an amount greater than 1 percent by weight.
    All existing area source facilities subject to this rule are 
required to comply with the rule requirements no later than January 5, 
2012. A new source is any affected source that commenced construction 
or reconstruction after July 27, 2009. All new sources are required to 
comply with the rule requirements by January 5, 2010 or upon startup, 
whichever is later.
    Prepared feeds manufacturing facilities that do not use any 
materials containing chromium or manganese are not subject to this 
rule. If a facility starts using a material containing chromium or 
manganese after the applicable compliance date, they will be required 
to comply at the time that they start using such materials. Also, if a 
facility stops using all materials containing chromium and manganese, 
they are no longer subject to the rule and should notify EPA or the 
delegated authority of the change.

B. What Are the Final Standards?

    The final requirements, which apply to all new and existing 
sources, consist of equipment standards and management practices. There 
are two general management practices that apply in all areas where 
materials containing chromium or manganese are stored, used, or 
handled. The first is to perform housekeeping measures to minimize 
excess dust that could contain chromium or manganese. The specific 
measures required by the rule are: (1) Use either an industrial vacuum 
system or manual sweeping to reduce the amount of dust, (2) at least 
once per month, remove dust from walls, ledges, and equipment using low 
pressure air or by other means, and then sweep or vacuum the area, and 
(3) keep doors shut except during normal ingress and egress.
    The second general management practice is the requirement to 
maintain and operate all process equipment that stores, processes, or 
contains chromium or manganese in accordance with manufacturers' 
specifications and in a manner to minimize dust creation.
    There are also requirements that are specific to certain areas of 
the plant or processes at all new and existing sources. These 
requirements are:
     For the storage area, all raw materials containing 
chromium or manganese must be stored in closed containers.

[[Page 525]]

     For mixing operations, materials containing chromium or 
manganese 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 processes where prepared feeds products 
containing chromium or manganese are loaded into trucks or railcars, 
you must use a device at the loadout end of each bulk loader to lessen 
fugitive emissions by reducing the distance between the loading arm and 
the truck or railcar.
    In addition to the above requirements that apply to all facilities, 
new and existing facilities with average daily feed production levels 
exceeding 50 tpd are required to install and operate a cyclone to 
reduce emissions from pelleting and pellet cooling operations. The 
average daily feed production level means the average amount of 
prepared feed product produced each operating day over an annual 
period. The initial determination of the average daily feed production 
level is based on the one-year period prior to the compliance date for 
existing sources, or the design rate for new sources. Subsequent 
average daily feed production levels are then determined annually and 
are based on the amount of animal feed product produced in the calendar 
year divided by the number of days in which the production processes 
were in operation. Facilities with average daily feed production levels 
of 50 tpd or less are required to submit production information in 
their Notification of Compliance Status report and keep records 
documenting their animal feed production levels.
    For the pelleting operations at facilities with daily pelleting 
production levels exceeding 50 tpd, the final rule requires that PM 
emissions be collected and routed to a cyclone that is designed to 
achieve 95 percent or greater reduction in PM. There are three ways you 
can demonstrate that your cyclone is designed to achieve 95 percent 
reduction in PM: (1) Manufacturer specifications that certifying the 
cyclone is designed to achieve 95 percent reduction in PM emissions; 
(2) certification by a professional engineer or responsible official 
that the cyclone is designed to achieve a 95 or greater percent 
reduction in PM emissions; or (3) a one-time Method 5 performance test 
to demonstrate that the cyclone can achieve a 95 percent or greater 
reduction in PM emissions.
    In addition, the final rule requires that you establish an 
operating parameter range that indicates proper operation of the 
cyclone and then monitor this parameter at least once per day. The 
specific parameters allowed to be monitored are inlet flow rate, inlet 
velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage. The range that represents 
proper operation of the cyclone must be provided by the manufacturer, 
determined as part of the engineering calculations demonstrating the 
design efficiency, or determined based on monitoring conducted during 
the performance test.
    The final rule also requires that you maintain the cyclone in 
accordance with manufacturer specifications. If manufacturer 
specifications are not available, you must develop and follow standard 
maintenance procedures.

C. What Are the Compliance Requirements?

    For all new and existing sources, compliance with the final 
regulation is demonstrated through installation of the required 
equipment, adherence to the management practices specified in the rule, 
and 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 tpd, the final rule requires that the 
cyclone be inspected quarterly for corrosion, erosion, or any other 
damage that could result in air in-leakage, and that the inlet flow 
rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage be monitored and 
recorded daily to ensure that it is being operated in accordance with 
specified proper operating range.
    The final rule also requires that the devices required at the 
loadout end of a bulk loader to lessen fugitive emissions by containing 
the unloaded product within the device 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 are required to comply with some 
requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), 
which are identified in Table 1 of the final rule. The General 
Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, 
recordkeeping, and reporting. Each facility is 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 is required to be submitted by affected 
sources not later than May 5, 2010, or 120 days after you become 
subject to the rule, whichever is later, must contain basic information 
about the facility and its operations. The Notification of Compliance 
Status, which is required to be submitted 120 days after the compliance 
date, must contain a statement that the source has complied with all 
relevant standards. The Notification of Compliance Status also must 
include the inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan 
amperage range that constitutes proper operation of the cyclone used to 
reduce emissions from the pelleting and pellet cooling operations. 
Facilities not required to install and operate cyclones on their 
pelleting operations are required to submit documentation of their 
initial average daily feed production level.
    The final rule requires that records be kept of all notifications 
of compliance. The rule requires that records be kept documenting each 
inspection of a cyclone and each inspection of a device at the loadout 
end of a bulk loader. It also requires that the daily reading of 
cyclone inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage 
be recorded. In addition, records are required of any actions taken in 
response to findings of the inspections or monitoring results outside 
the proper operating range. Facilities with average daily feed 
production levels of 50 tpd or less are required to keep records of the 
annual production and the number of days of operation.
    The final rule includes the requirement to prepare, by March 1 of 
each year, and submit an annual compliance certification, a copy of 
which will need to be maintained on site. This report must contain a 
statement of 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 inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, 
pressure drop, or fan amperage was outside of the proper operating 
range submitted in the Notification of Compliance Status report, this 
information is required to be included in the annual report and the 
report needs to be submitted to the EPA Administrator or the designated 
authority. All records are required to be maintained in a form suitable 
and readily available for expeditious review, and kept for at least 
five years, the first two of which must be onsite.

[[Page 526]]

V. Summary of Comments and Responses

    EPA received 16 public comment letters on the proposed rule. Five 
of these comment letters were requests for an extension to the comment 
period,\1\ leaving 11 comment letters that provided comments on the 
proposed rule. These comments were received from industry 
representatives, trade associations, state agencies, and an 
environmental organization. Sections V.A through V.G of this preamble 
provide responses to the public comments received on the proposed 
NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We denied the requests for extension by letter, copies of 
which are in the docket. These letters explain the reasons for the 
denial. These reasons are also provided in section V.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Rulemaking Process

    Comment: Several commenters requested that the comment period be 
extended by 90 days. The commenters had concerns about the inputs to 
the impacts analysis and requested additional time to collect and 
provide factual information to the agency about the proposed rule's 
provisions and their potential impact.
    Response: Due to a court-ordered deadline for promulgation of this 
rule (which at the time of proposal was November 16, 2009), we were 
unable to extend the comment period in response to these requests. 
Moreover, CAA section 307(d) requires that EPA provide a minimum of 30 
days for public comment, and we provided that period for public 
comment. Furthermore, consistent with section 307(d), the proposed rule 
provided the public an opportunity to request a public hearing, and no 
party requested such a hearing. See 307(d)(5) (record remains open 30 
days after the date of the public hearing).
    Comment: One commenter expressed their concerns about the process 
that EPA used to develop its proposed national emission standard for 
prepared feeds manufacturers. The commenter believes that EPA did not 
provide ample due process in developing the proposed rule. The 
commenter pointed out that they requested a 90-day extension to the 
proposed rule's comment period so that accurate information could be 
obtained to respond to the assumptions and estimates made by the 
agency. In this request, the commenter indicated that they highlighted 
five major areas of the proposed rule in which they believed EPA lacked 
critical information that directly affects the provisions within the 
proposed rule and its impact on prepared feeds manufacturers. Since EPA 
denied their request for extension of the comment period, the commenter 
indicated that they were left with what they believe was an 
inappropriately short 30-day comment period to respond to a proposed 
rule that, if promulgated as drafted, would have very significant 
operational and economic impacts on prepared feeds manufacturers. While 
cognizant of EPA's court-ordered mandate to issue this national 
emission standard, the commenter believes that the agency's actions 
related to gathering industry information, timing of the proposed rule 
and its response to their request for extension of the comment period 
are not indicative of a constructive or meaningful rulemaking process.
    Response: EPA complied with the requirements of 307(d) during this 
rulemaking process. We engaged industry prior to proposal by meeting 
and by telephone to discuss our rulemaking process and the information 
we intended to obtain through the 114 survey. EPA strongly disagrees 
with the commenters' assertion that EPA did not provide ample due 
process in developing the rule.
    CAA 307(d) requires EPA to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking 
and provide a minimum of 30 days for the public to comment on the 
proposal, and EPA complied with this requirement. EPA also identified a 
date for public hearing, if such hearing was requested by any member of 
the public. No member of the public requested a hearing, and therefore, 
a public hearing was not held.
    In conclusion, we believe that lines of communication with the 
industry were well established and open throughout the rulemaking 
process, and that the commenters had ample opportunity to participate.

B. Applicability

    Comment: Two commenters stated that the rule should clarify that a 
prepared feeds manufacturing facility is a facility that produces 
feeds, and not a facility that manufactures feed ingredients. One of 
the commenters explained that although feed ingredient companies may 
predominantly manufacture ingredients for animal feed and be classified 
under the NAICS Code defining the Prepared Feeds Manufacturing source 
category (NAICS 311119), they may also produce feed ingredients for 
human and/or companion animal consumption.
    Response: EPA would like to clarify that, in addition to facilities 
that produce animal feed, facilities that manufacture feed ingredients 
are part of the prepared feeds manufacturing area source category. The 
category was identified in the original section 112(k) emissions 
inventory through the use of the Standard Industrial Classification 
(SIC) code 2048, Prepared Feeds Manufacturing, except cat and dog feed. 
As noted by the commenter, the NAICS code that covers this area source 
category is 311119, which is equivalent to the SIC code used in the 
original source category definition. The SIC/NAICS code for the source 
category includes many segments of the prepared feed industry, 
including the production of feed ingredients. Specifically, in addition 
to many other segments of the industry, NAICS code 311119, and thus the 
prepared feeds manufacturing area source category, includes:
     Feed concentrates, animal, manufacturing;
     Feed premixes, animal, manufacturing;
     Feed supplements, animal (except cat, dog), manufacturing;
     Micro and macro premixes, livestock, manufacturing;
     Mineral feed supplements (except cat, dog) manufacturing; 
and
     Mineral supplements, animal (except cat, dog), 
manufacturing.
    Therefore, since facilities that manufacture feed ingredients are 
subject to the rule, we did not make the change suggested by the 
commenter. We did, however, make changes to the applicability 
provisions and definitions to clarify the various segments of the 
prepared feeds industry that are included in the source category and, 
therefore, subject to the rule (provided they use chromium or 
manganese). These changes include adding a definition of ``animal 
feed,'' which includes a list of all the products included under NAICS 
code 311119. While we recognize that chromium and manganese are not 
used in the production of many of the animal feed products in the 
definition, we believe that a complete listing eliminates the confusion 
of what types of processes are included in the source category. We 
would point out, however, that, even if a facility produces a listed 
animal feed product (e.g., earthworm feed and bedding), it is not 
subject to the rule if no chromium or manganese is used.
    One of the commenters raised the issue of a facility that produces 
a product covered by the rule along with other similar products that 
would not be covered by the rule. Specifically, the commenter mentions 
a facility that produces animal feed ingredients along with feed 
ingredients for humans and/or cats and dogs. First, the NAICS code only 
includes establishments ``primarily engaged in'' manufacturing animal 
feed.

[[Page 527]]

We have revised the definition of ``prepared feed manufacturing 
facility'' to incorporate this concept. Specifically, the final rule 
contains the following definition.

    Prepared feeds manufacturing facility means a facility that is 
primarily engaged in manufacturing animal feed. A facility is 
primarily engaged in manufacturing animal feed if the production of 
animal feed comprises greater than 50 percent of the total 
production of the facility on an annual basis. Facilities primarily 
engaged in raising or feeding animals are not considered prepared 
feeds manufacturing facilities.

Thus, a facility would be a prepared feeds manufacturing facility 
subject to the rule if the animal feed ingredients (not including 
ingredients for dog, cat, or human feed) make up more than half of its 
production. In addition, the final rule specifies that an affected 
source at a prepared feeds manufacturing facility only includes the 
collection of equipment and activities necessary to produce animal feed 
containing chromium or manganese. Therefore, if the ingredients for 
human and/or dog and cat feed at a facility primarily engaged in 
manufacturing animal feed were produced in equipment that is never used 
to produce ``animal feed,'' those production processes would not be 
part of the affected source and would not be subject to the 
requirements in the rule. While not specifically mentioned by the 
commenters, consideration of these applicability issues, along with 
comments related to the number of facilities in the source category, 
caused us to clarify that prepared feeds manufacturing at farms and 
animal feed lots is not part of this source category. Facilities 
``primarily engaged'' in raising or feeding animals are listed under 
different NAICS codes (e.g., 112210--Hog and Pig Farming, 112112--
Cattle Feedlots, 112111--Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming) and were not 
part of the sources that formed the basis for the listing of the 
prepared feed manufacturing area source category.
    Comment: Five commenters stated that the rule should only apply to 
prepared feeds manufacturing facilities that use or emit chromium 
compounds or manganese compounds above a specified threshold. The 
commenters claimed that such an approach would focus attention on 
facilities that are more significant emitters of chromium and manganese 
and will avoid requiring extremely small facilities to comply with the 
rule with little environmental benefit. The commenters suggested 
several different threshold levels. One commenter recommended a 
threshold based on established Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization 
Act of 1986 (SARA) Tier II threshold quantities (10,000 pounds per 
year), while another suggested 2,000 pounds per year based on levels 
determined to be insignificant under the title V program. Another 
commenter noted that Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) regulations require 
a covered facility to report only if it manufactures or processes non-
exempt chromium and/or manganese compounds in quantities exceeding 
25,000 pounds per year, and suggested that a threshold be established 
at this 25,000 pounds per year level. Still another commenter suggested 
a level of 1,000 pounds per day. One of the commenters recommended 
that, if such a threshold is established, compounds having a 
concentration of less than 1 percent of the chromium compounds or 
manganese compounds need not be counted by a facility when determining 
whether it has used a sufficient quantity to reach the threshold use 
level that establishes whether a facility is subject to the rule's 
provisions.
    Response: Although several commenters advocated for a usage 
threshold for chromium compounds and manganese compounds, below which a 
facility would be exempt, we are not adopting any exemptions. Prepared 
Feeds Manufacturing is one of the area source categories needed to meet 
the section 112(c)(3) requirement that we subject to regulation, (i.e., 
area source categories representing 90 percent of the emissions of 
chromium and manganese). We reviewed the listing decision for this area 
source category and did not identify any information suggesting that 
small sources were not included in the listing decision. As such, we do 
not believe we can satisfy our requirement to regulate sources 
representing 90 percent of the emissions of Prepared Feeds 
Manufacturing urban HAP unless we subject all sources that emit those 
HAP to the rule.
    We recognize that the Prepared Feeds Manufacturing source category 
is comprised of a large number of relatively small facilities. Although 
area sources individually may be considered low-emitting sources, 
collectively, they are not. The commenter's suggestion fails to address 
the requirement of section 112(c)(3), and, as discussed above, we 
previously determined that we need to subject the Prepared Feeds 
Manufacturing area source category to regulations in order to meet the 
requirement that EPA regulate area sources accounting for 90 percent of 
the emissions of the 30 urban HAP.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the applicability be changed 
to only include facilities that utilize pelletizing operations. The 
commenter noted that this would more adequately match the original 
group of prepared feeds manufacturers who were surveyed and those in 
the same class. The commenter also pointed out that the pelleting and 
pellet cooling process is the most significant source of pollutants, as 
it is estimated to emit 90 percent or more of the total chromium and 
manganese.
    Response: The basis for the listing of the area source category was 
not limited to emissions from pelleting. Thus, we conclude that the 
applicability should remain as proposed.

C. Emission Standards

1. General
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA based the proposed standard 
on erroneous and misguided assumptions and estimates of emissions of 
chromium compounds and manganese compounds. This commenter had numerous 
objections to the impacts analyses (see section V.G) and how these 
analyses impacted EPA's decision to regulate this category and specific 
emission points.
    Response: In section 112(c)(3) of the CAA, EPA is required to list 
``sufficient categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that 
area source representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban 
HAP are subject to regulation.'' An area source emissions inventory was 
compiled for each of the 30 urban HAP and the area source categories 
identified that comprised 90 percent of the emissions of each of these 
HAP. For the prepared feeds manufacturing source category, this 
inventory was based on data from the 1990 TRI. The TRI is an EPA 
inventory of annual emissions self-reported by industry. Based on this 
information, EPA determined that chromium compounds emissions and 
manganese compounds emissions from prepared feeds manufacturing area 
sources needed to be regulated to achieve the 90 percent requirement in 
CAA section 112(c)(3). Therefore, the decision to regulate emissions of 
chromium compounds and manganese compounds from the prepared feeds 
manufacturing industry was based on emissions data submitted directly 
by the industry. The information and analyses referred to by the 
commenter were prepared to evaluate potential impacts of regulatory 
options. This information had no bearing on the basic decision to 
develop regulations for the prepared feeds manufacturing area source 
category.
    The commenter is also incorrect with respect to how emission points 
were identified for regulation. They assume that the information 
compiled for the

[[Page 528]]

impacts analyses was used as the basis to identify emission points for 
regulation. Rather, chromium and manganese emission points were 
identified primarily based on information submitted directly by the 
industry. Specifically, we conducted a survey of the industry, and 
responses were received for over 100 prepared feeds manufacturing 
facilities. In the responses to this survey, prepared feeds 
manufacturing facilities identified potential emission sources and 
reported controls and management practices that were being used. This 
information formed the basis for the decisions regarding the emission 
points and process areas for which standards were proposed.
    In conclusion, the commenter raised several issues on the impacts 
analyses (see section V.G below). However, the issues associated with 
these analyses did not influence the basic decision to regulate this 
source category or the decisions on the specific emission sources that 
would be regulated.
    Comment: One commenter asserted that, ``* * * The legislative 
history of Sec.  112 explains that Congress intended GACT standards to 
reflect `methods, practices and techniques which are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by sources in the category 
considering economic impacts and technical capabilities of the firms to 
operate and maintain emission control systems'.''
    The commenter also asserted that, although EPA used its discretion 
to issue GACT standards and that Sec.  112(d)(5) authorizes EPA to do 
so, that decision is subject to administrative law requirements. The 
commenter asserted that EPA's decision is arbitrary and capricious 
because that decision was not supported with a rational explanation.
    Response: As the commenter recognizes, in CAA section 112(d)(5), 
Congress gave EPA explicit authority to issue alternative emission 
standards for area sources. Specifically, CAA section 112(d)(5), which 
is entitled ``Alternative standard for area sources,'' provides:

    With respect only to categories and subcategories of area 
sources listed pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, the 
Administrator may, in lieu of the authorities provided in paragraph 
(2) and subsection (f) of this section, elect to promulgate 
standards or requirements applicable to sources in such categories 
or subcategories which provide for the use of generally available 
control technologies or management practices by such sources to 
reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.

See CAA section 112(d)(5) (Emphasis added).

    There are two critical aspects to CAA section 112(d)(5). First, CAA 
section 112(d)(5) applies only to those categories and subcategories of 
area sources listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c). The commenter does 
not dispute that EPA listed the area source category noted above 
pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3). Second, CAA section 112(d)(5) 
provides that, for area sources listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c), 
EPA ``may, in lieu of'' the authorities provided in CAA section 
112(d)(2) and 112(f), elect to promulgate standards pursuant to CAA 
section 112(d)(5). CAA Section 112(d)(2) provides that emission 
standards established under that provision ``require the maximum degree 
of reduction in emissions'' of HAP (also known as maximum achievable 
control technology or MACT). CAA section 112(d)(3), in turn, defines 
what constitutes the ``maximum degree of reduction in emissions'' for 
new and existing sources. See CAA section 112(d)(3).\2\ Webster's 
dictionary defines the phrase ``in lieu of'' to mean ``in the place 
of'' or ``instead of.'' See Webster's II New Riverside University 
(1994). Thus, CAA section 112(d)(5) authorizes EPA to promulgate 
standards under CAA section 112(d)(5) that provide for the use of GACT, 
instead of issuing MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and 
(d)(3). The statute does not set any condition precedent for issuing 
standards under CAA section 112(d)(5) other than that the area source 
category or subcategory at issue must be one that EPA listed pursuant 
to CAA section 112(c), which is the case here.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Specifically, CAA section 112(d)(3) sets the minimum degree 
of emission reduction that MACT standards must achieve, which is 
known as the MACT floor. For new sources, the degree of emission 
reduction shall not be less stringent than the emission control that 
is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, and 
for existing sources, the degree of emission reduction shall not be 
less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the 
best performing 12 percent of the existing sources for which the 
Administrator has emissions information. CAA Section 112(d)(2) 
directs EPA to consider whether more stringent emission reductions 
(so called beyond-the-floor limits) are technologically achievable 
considering, among other things, the cost of achieving the emission 
reduction.
    \3\ CAA Section 112(d)(5) also references CAA section 112(f). 
See CAA section 112(f)(5) (entitled ``Area Sources'' and providing 
that EPA is not required to conduct a review or promulgate standards 
under CAA section 112(f) for any area source category or subcategory 
listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3), and for which an emission 
standard is issued pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disagree with the commenter's assertion that we must provide a 
rationale for issuing GACT standards under section 112(d)(5), instead 
of MACT standards. Had Congress intended that EPA first conduct a MACT 
analysis for each area source category, Congress would have stated so 
expressly in section 112(d)(5). Congress did not require EPA to conduct 
any MACT analysis, floor analysis or beyond-the-floor analysis before 
the Agency could issue a section 112(d)(5) standard. Rather, Congress 
authorized EPA to issue GACT standards for area source categories 
listed under section 112(c), and that is precisely what EPA has done in 
this rulemaking.
    Although EPA has no obligation to justify why it is issuing a GACT 
standard for an area source category as opposed to a MACT standard, we 
did explain at proposal that being able to consider costs and economic 
impacts is important when establishing standards for a category like 
this with many small sources. Furthermore, EPA must set a GACT standard 
that is consistent with the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(5) and 
have a reasoned basis for its GACT determination. As explained in the 
proposed rule and below. The legislative history supporting section 
112(d)(5) provides that GACT is to encompass:

    ``* * * 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.''

The discussion in the Senate report clearly provides that EPA may 
consider costs in determining what constitutes GACT for the area source 
category. Congress plainly recognized that area sources differ from 
major sources, which is why Congress allowed EPA to consider costs in 
setting GACT standards for area sources under section 112(d)(5), but 
did not allow that consideration in setting MACT floors for major 
sources pursuant to section 112(d)(3). This important dichotomy between 
section 112(d)(3) and section 112(d)(5) provides further evidence that 
Congress sought to do precisely what the title of section 112(d)(5) 
states, i.e., provide EPA the authority to issue ``alternative 
standards for area sources.''

    Notwithstanding the commenter's claim, EPA properly issued 
standards for the area source categories at issue here under section 
112(d)(5), and in doing so provided a reasoned basis for its selection 
of GACT for these area source categories. As explained in the proposed 
rule, EPA evaluated the control technologies and management practices 
that reduce HAP emissions at Prepared Feeds Manufacturing area source 
facilities. In its evaluation, EPA used information on pollution

[[Page 529]]

prevention from industry trade associations, and reviewed operating 
permits to identify the emission controls and management practices that 
are currently used to control volatile and particulate HAP emissions. 
We also considered technologies and practices at major and area sources 
in similar categories.
    Finally, even though not required, EPA did provide a rationale for 
why it set a GACT standard in the proposed rule. In the proposal, we 
explained that the facilities in the source categories at issue are 
already well controlled for the urban HAP for which the source category 
was listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3). Consideration of costs and 
economic impacts proves especially important for the well-controlled 
area sources at issue in this final action. Given the current, well 
controlled emission levels, a MACT floor determination, where costs 
cannot be considered, could result in only marginal reductions in 
emissions at very high costs for modest incremental improvement in 
control for the area source category.
    Comment: One commenter questioned why EPA was not considering 
regulation for all HAP emissions. The commenter explained that, as 
documented in the record for this rulemaking, that Prepared Feed 
Manufacturing facilities often generate emissions other than manganese, 
such as arsenic and arsenic compounds, benzene, beryllium and beryllium 
compounds, cadmium and cadmium compounds, chlorine, cobalt and cobalt 
compounds, formaldehyde, hexane, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen fluoride, 
lead and lead compounds, mercury and mercury compounds, naphthalene, 
nickel and nickel compounds, polycyclic organic matter, selenium and 
selenium compounds, and toluene. The commenter acknowledged that 
management practices and PM controls required by the rule will likely 
reduce other metal HAP emissions to some degree; however they indicated 
that the Agency failed to quantify this benefit. The commenter also 
indicated that EPA should consider controls for other HAPs that will 
not be co-controlled with the manganese and chromium.
    Response: Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify 
at least 30 HAP emitted from area sources that pose the greatest threat 
to public health in the largest number of urban areas (the ``Urban 
HAP'') and identify the area source categories emitting such pollutants 
that are or will be listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3). Section 
112(c)(3), in relevant part, provides:

    The Administrator shall * * *, pursuant to subsection (k)(3)(B) 
of this section, list, based on actual or estimated aggregate 
emissions of a listed pollutant or pollutants, sufficient categories 
or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources 
representing 90 percent of the area source emissions of the 30 
hazardous air pollutants that present the greatest threat to public 
health in the largest number of urban areas are subject to 
regulation under this section.

Thus, 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 area source emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject 
to regulation. Section 112(d)(1) requires the Administrator to 
promulgate regulations establishing emissions standards for each area 
source category of HAP listed for regulation pursuant to section 
112(c).
    EPA identified the 30 Urban HAP that posed the greatest threat to 
public health in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (Strategy). 
In the Strategy and subsequent Federal Register notices, EPA listed the 
area source categories necessary to meet the 90 percent requirement in 
section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), and one of those categories was the 
Prepared Feeds Manufacturing area source category.
    We have interpreted sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B) together to 
require EPA to regulate only those Urban HAP emissions for which an 
area source category is listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3), not all 
urban HAP or all section 112(b) HAP emitted from a listed area source 
category. As stated above, section 112(k)(3)(B) addresses the strategy 
to control HAP from area sources in urban areas and the focus of the 
strategy as it relates to control of area sources is on the 30 HAP that 
pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of 
urban areas. Section 112(c)(3) specifically references section 
112(k)(3)(B) as the basis for selecting area sources for listing to 
satisfy the Agency's responsibility for regulating urban HAP emissions 
from area sources. Under these provisions, area sources categories are 
listed because they emit one or more of the 30 listed Urban HAP and the 
Agency has identified the category as one that is necessary to satisfy 
the requirement to subject area sources representing 90 percent of the 
area source emissions of the 30 urban HAP to regulation.
    EPA listed the Prepared Feeds Manufacturing area source category 
pursuant to sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B). We must regulate only 
the chromium and manganese emissions from the Prepared Feeds 
Manufacturing area source category, as these are the urban HAP 
emissions for which the category was listed to meet the 90 percent 
requirement in sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B). See 112(c)(3) (EPA 
must ``ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the area 
source emissions of the 30 hazardous air pollutants * * * are subject 
to regulation.''). We recognize that the source category emits other 
section 112(b) HAP, including other urban HAP; however, as stated 
above, sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B) do not require the Agency to 
regulate the area source category for any HAP other than those for 
which the category was listed. As to the other urban HAP emitted from 
this category, we have identified other area source categories that 
emit these urban HAP and subjecting those area source categories to 
regulation will satisfy the requirement to subject to regulation area 
sources that account for 90 percent of the area source emissions of 
those urban HAP.
    While the Agency is not required to regulate all section 112(b) HAP 
from area sources listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and 
112(k)(3)(B), section 112 of the CAA does not preclude EPA from 
regulating other HAP from these area sources at our discretion and in 
appropriate circumstances. Section 112(d)(5) states that, for area 
sources listed pursuant to section 112(c), the Administrator may, in 
lieu of section 112(d)(2) ``MACT'' standards, promulgate standards or 
requirements ``applicable to sources'' which provide for the use of 
GACT or management practices ``to reduce emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants.'' This provision does not limit EPA's authority to regulate 
only those urban HAP emissions for which the category is needed to 
achieve the 90 percent requirement in sections 112(k)(3)(B) and 
112(c)(3). In fact, in two other area source rules, in addition to 
regulating the urban HAP that were necessary to satisfy the 90 percent 
requirement in sections 112(k)(3)(B) and 112(c)(3), we regulated 
additional section 112(b) HAP. Specifically, in the chemical 
manufacturing area source rule and the paint and allied products area 
source rule, although not required, we exercised our discretion to 
regulate other section 112(b) HAP beyond the urban HAP for which the 
categories were listed under section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), including 
non-urban section 112(b) HAP. The chemical manufacturing area source 
rule and the paints and allied products area source rule both involve 
specific circumstances which EPA believes justify regulating organic 
and metal section 112(b) HAP in

[[Page 530]]

addition to the specific urban HAP needed to meet the 90 percent 
requirement in section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), which served as the 
basis for the listing of the categories. In the chemical manufacturing 
area source rule, which establishes standards for 9 area source 
categories, we regulated such HAP because the emission standards 
designed to control the urban HAP for which the categories were listed 
were equally effective at removing other urban and non-urban metal and 
organic HAP, and demonstrating compliance for total HAP was less 
burdensome than demonstrating compliance for speciated HAP for those 
sources required to install add-on controls. In the paint and allied 
products area source rule, we included emission standards for HAP 
beyond the urban HAP for which the category was listed because the 
emission standards designed to control those urban HAP would also 
control other urban and non-urban metal and organic HAP.
    In conclusion, we believe that we have appropriately exercised our 
discretion in regulating only the chromium and manganese emissions from 
the prepared feeds manufacturing area source category. Therefore, we 
did not make any changes in the final rule based on this comment.
2. Housekeeping Management Practices
    Comment: One commenter claimed that the Agency's proposed 
housekeeping practices are ``overreaching,'' ``unfounded,'' and 
``unnecessary.'' The commenter believed that EPA had no basis for 
correlating housekeeping practices with ambient air concentrations of 
chromium compounds or manganese compounds.
    The commenter also had concerns with regard to two of the specific 
plant-wide housekeeping requirements proposed. The commenter argued 
that the requirement that dust be removed from walls, ledges and 
equipment at least once per month is not performance-orientated and 
fails to consider individual facility operations or existing management 
practices. The commenter also disagreed with the Agency's assertion 
that air flow through open doors `stirs-up' dust and causes chromium 
compounds and manganese compounds to be emitted into the atmosphere. 
Therefore, the commenter opposed the proposed requirement that affected 
facilities keep doors shut, as practicable. In addition, the commenter 
also expressed concern over the facilities ability to comply with this 
requirement as they questioned what would be the parameters set/used to 
determine that having a door shut is not practicable.
    The commenter noted that prepared feeds manufacturing facilities 
already comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration's 
(OSHA) Grain Handling Standard (29 CFR 1910.272) and the Food and Drug 
Administration's (FDA's) Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs) 
for Medicated Feeds (21 CFR part 225), and that they are regularly 
inspected by Federal and State authorities. Because of this, the 
commenter believed that EPA's proposed housekeeping practices are 
unnecessary. The commenter provided more detailed descriptions of these 
two programs.

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Grain 
Handling Standard (29 CFR 1910.272): This standard requires 
facilities to ``develop and implement a written housekeeping program 
that establishes the frequency and method(s) determined best to 
reduce accumulations of fugitive grain dust on ledges, floors, 
equipment and other exposed surfaces'' throughout the entire 
facility. OSHA's housekeeping requirements are performance-oriented, 
allowing facilities the flexibility to design housekeeping programs 
to achieve compliance through methods that are most effective for 
individual facilities and operations.
    FDA's Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs) for Medicated 
Feeds (21 CFR 225): The vast majority of prepared feed manufacturers 
are mandated to comply with CGMPs that require buildings and 
equipment be maintained and kept in a reasonably clean and orderly 
manner to avoid the potential adulteration of feed products. 
Regarding this provision, FDA's compliance program guidance states, 
``Accumulated dust or residue will be considered objectionable when 
there is a likelihood that the material could contribute to 
significant contamination of animal feed.'' Similar to the OSHA 
requirement, FDA's housekeeping standard also is performance-
orientated. The CGMP regulations allow facilities to implement those 
housekeeping practices that are effective for their individual 
operations and achieve compliance with the standard.

    Another commenter recommended that instead of the specific 
requirements,