[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 142 (Monday, July 27, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36980-36994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the EPA Air and
Radiation Docket Web Site.
E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail)
to [email protected], 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 http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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: [email protected].
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 http://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: http://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
0.96 percent of shipments for a subset of firms with an overall impact
of 0.94 percent of shipments for the industry as a whole. As a result,
this action is not expected to have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities or the economy as a whole,
regardless of whether or not the firms in the industry are able to pass
along any increases in their costs to the consumers.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it may raise
novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to
the OMB for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for
this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2354.01.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this proposed rule
are based on the requirements in EPA's NESHAP General Provisions (40
CFR part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping and reporting requirements
in the General Provisions are mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other than emissions data
submitted to EPA pursuant to the information collection requirements
for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according
to CAA section 114(c) and the Agency's implementing regulations at 40
CFR part 2, subpart B.
This proposed NESHAP would require prepared feeds manufacturing
area sources to submit an Initial Notification and a Notification of
Compliance Status according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the
General Provisions (subpart A). Records would be required to
demonstrate compliance with the monitoring and management practice
requirements that ensure good operation and maintenance of capture and
control devices. The owner or operator of a prepared feeds
manufacturing facility also is subject to notification and
recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 and 63.10 of the General
Provisions (subpart A), although we are proposing that annual
compliance reports are sufficient instead of semiannual reports.
The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
first three years of this ICR is estimated to be a total of 27,000
labor hours per year at a cost of approximately $2.1 million or $1,200
per facility. The average annual reporting burden is 0.6 hours per
response, with approximately 2 responses per facility. The only capital
and operating and maintenance costs are associated with the
installation of monitoring equipment on cyclones required to control
pelleting emissions at the larger prepared feeds manufacturing
facilities. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0080]. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this proposed rule for where to
submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after July 27, 2009, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by August 26,
2009. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the
[[Page 36990]]
Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency
certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small
businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 500 employees for NAICS
311119); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule is estimated to impact 1,800 prepared feed manufacturing
facilities that are currently operating. We estimate that all of these
facilities may be small entities. We have determined that small entity
compliance costs, as assessed by the facilities' cost-to-sales ratio,
are expected to be less than 0.004 percent. The costs are so small that
the impact is not expected to be significant. The impact on small
entities is significantly decreased since the proposed rule would not
require plants with daily production levels less than 50 tons per day
to install add-on controls. Although this proposed rule contains
requirements for new area sources, we are not aware of any new area
sources being constructed now or planned in the next 3 years, and
consequently, we did not estimate any impacts for new sources.
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
standards represent practices and controls that are common throughout
the prepared feeds manufacturing industry. The standards also require
only the essential recordkeeping and reporting needed to demonstrate
and verify compliance. These standards were developed based on
information obtained from small businesses in our surveys, consultation
with small business representatives on the state and national level,
and industry representatives that are affiliated with small businesses.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed action on small entities and welcome comments on issues
related to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, and tribal governments or the private
sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local,
tribal governments or the private sector.
This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The proposed rules
contain no requirements that apply to such governments, and impose no
obligations upon them.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by state and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the states, on
the relationship between the national government and the states, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule does not
impose any requirements on state and local governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from state and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action
would not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. The action imposes requirements on owners
and operators of specified area sources and not tribal governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
action from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 F.R. 19885, April 23,
1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely
on technology performance.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this
proposed rule would not likely have any significant adverse energy
impacts.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
[[Page 36991]]
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This proposed rule will establish national standards
for the prepared feeds manufacturing area source category.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 21, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart DDDDDDD to read as follows:
Subpart DDDDDDD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area Sources: Prepared Feeds Manufacturing
Applicability and Compliance Dates
Sec.
63.11619 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11620 What are my compliance dates?
Standards, Monitoring, and Compliance Requirements
63.11621 What are the standards for new and existing prepared feed
manufacturing facilities?
63.11622 What are the monitoring requirements for new and existing
sources?
63.11623 [Reserved]
63.11624 What are the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements?
Other Requirements and Information
63.11625 What parts of the General Provisions apply to my facility?
63.11626 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.11627 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11628--63.11638 [Reserved]
Tables to Subpart DDDDDDD of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart DDDDDDD of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Prepared Feeds Manufacturing Area Sources
Subpart DDDDDDD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area Sources: Prepared Feeds Manufacturing
Applicability and Compliance Dates
Sec. 63.11619 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a
prepared feed manufacturing facility that uses chromium compounds or
manganese compounds and is an area source of emissions of these
hazardous air pollutants (HAP).
(b) The provisions of this subpart apply to each new and existing
prepared feed manufacturing facility affected source. A prepared feeds
manufacturing affected source is 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, areas where the chromium compounds and manganese
compounds are temporarily stored prior to addition to the feed at the
mixer, mixing and grinding processes, pelleting and pellet cooling
processes, packing and bagging processes, crumblers and screens, bulk
loading operations, and all conveyors and other equipment that transfer
the feed materials throughout the manufacturing facility.
(c) A prepared feed manufacturing facility affected source exists
if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the facility on or
before July 27, 2009.
(d) A prepared feed manufacturing facility affected source is new
if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the facility after
July 27, 2009.
(e) This subpart does not apply to the facilities identified in
paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Prepared feed manufacturing facilities that do not add any
materials containing chromium compounds or manganese compounds to any
product manufactured at the facility.
(2) Research or laboratory facilities as defined in section
112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
(f) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required
by law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3.
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with
the provisions of this subpart.
Sec. 63.11620 What are my compliance dates?
(a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart by no
later than two years after the date of publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register.
(b) If you start up a new affected source on or before the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, you must achieve
compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart by no later
than the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
(c) If you start up a new affected source after the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, you must achieve
compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart upon startup
of your affected source.
Standards, Monitoring, and Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.11621 What are the standards for new and existing prepared
feed manufacturing facilities?
You must comply with the management practices and standards in
[[Page 36992]]
paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section at all times.
(a) In all areas of the affected source, you must comply with the
management practices in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) You must perform housekeeping measures to minimize excess dust.
These measures must include, but not be limited to, the practices
specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) You must use either an industrial vacuum system or manual
sweeping to reduce the amount of dust,
(ii) At least once per month, you must remove dust from walls,
ledges, and equipment using low pressure air or by other means, and
then sweep or vacuum the area.
(iii) You must keep doors shut, as practicable.
(2) You must maintain and operate all process equipment in a manner
to minimize dust creation.
(b) You must store any raw materials containing chromium compounds
or manganese compounds in closed containers.
(c) The mixer where materials containing chromium compounds or
manganese compounds are added must be covered at all times when mixing
is occurring, except when the materials are being added to the mixer.
Materials containing chromium compounds or manganese compounds must be
added to the mixer in a manner that minimizes emissions.
(d) For the bulk loading process where prepared feed products are
loaded into trucks or railcars, you must use filter drop socks at the
end of the loading arms.
(e) For the pelleting operations at facilities with a daily
production rate exceeding 50 tons per day, you must capture emissions
and route them to a cyclone designed to reduce emissions of particulate
matter less than 10 microns in diameter by at least 95 percent. You
must operate and maintain the cyclone in accordance with manufacturer's
specifications. This includes operating within the pressure drop range
recommended by the manufacturer. You must comply with the monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.11622(b) of this subpart.
Sec. 63.11622 What are the monitoring requirements for new and
existing sources?
(a) If you own or operate an affected source required by Sec.
63.11621(d) to use a filter drop sock reduce emissions from a bulk
loading process, you must perform monthly inspections of each filter
drop sock to ensure it is in proper working condition. You must record
the results of these inspections in accordance with Sec.
63.11624(c)(4) of this subpart.
(b) If you own or operate an affected source required by Sec.
63.11621(e) to install and operate a cyclone to control emissions from
pelleting operations, you must comply with the monitoring requirements
in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) You must perform monthly inspections of the cyclone for
corrosion, erosion, or any other damage that could result in air in-
leakage, and record the results in accordance with Sec.
63.11624(c)(5)(ii).
(2) You must monitor pressure drop at least once per day. You must
also record the pressure drop in accordance with Sec.
63.11624(c)(5)(iii).
Sec. 63.11623 [Reserved]
Sec. 63.11624 What are the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements?
(a) Notifications. You must submit the notifications identified in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Initial Notification. You must submit the Initial Notification
required by Sec. 63.9(b)(2) of the General Provisions no later than
120 days after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. The Initial Notification must include the information
specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) The name, address, phone number and e-mail address of the owner
and operator;
(ii) The address (physical location) of the affected source;
(iii) An identification of the relevant standard (i.e., this
subpart); and
(iv) A brief description of the operation
(2) Notification of Compliance Status. If you are the owner of an
existing affected source, you must submit a Notification of Compliance
Status in accordance with Sec. 63.9(h) of the General Provisions on or
before 2 years and 120 days after the date of publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register. If you are the owner or operator of a new
affected source, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status
within 120 days of initial startup, or by 120 days after the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, whichever is
later. This Notification of Compliance Status must include the
information specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) Your company's name and address;
(ii) A statement by a responsible official with that official's
name, title, phone number, e-mail address and signature, certifying the
truth, accuracy, and completeness of the notification and a statement
of whether the source has complied with all the relevant standards and
other requirements of this subpart;
(iii) The pressure drop range that constitutes proper operation of
the cyclone if you own or operate an affected source required by Sec.
63.11621(e) to install and operate a cyclone to control emissions from
pelleting operations.
(b) Annual compliance certification report. You must, by March 1 of
each year, prepare an annual compliance certification report for the
previous calendar year containing the information specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section. You must submit the
report by March 15 if you had any instance described by paragraph
(b)(3) or (b)(4) of this section.
(1) Your company's name and address.
(2) A statement by a responsible official with that official's
name, title, phone number, e-mail address and signature, certifying the
truth, accuracy, and completeness of the notification and a statement
of whether the source has complied with all the relevant standards and
other requirements of this subpart.
(3) If the source is not in compliance, include a description of
deviations from the applicable requirements, the time periods during
which the deviations occurred, and the corrective actions taken.
(4) Identification of all instances when the daily pressure drop
across a cyclone is outside of the pressure drop range that constitutes
proper operation of the cyclone submitted as part of your Notification
of Compliance Status. In these instances, include the time periods when
this occurred and the corrective actions taken.
(c) Records. You must maintain the records specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (5) of this section in accordance with paragraphs (c)(6)
through (8) of this section.
(1) As required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv), you must keep a copy of
each notification that you submitted to comply with this subpart in
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, and all documentation
supporting any Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance
Status that you submitted.
(2) You must keep a copy of each Annual Compliance Certification
prepared in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) You must keep a monthly record certifying that you have
complied with
[[Page 36993]]
the management practices in Sec. 63.11621(a), (b), (c), and (d).
(4) For each filter drop sock used to comply with the requirements
in Sec. 63.11621(d), you must keep the records of all monthly
inspections including the information identified in paragraphs
(c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The date, place, and time of each inspection;
(ii) Person performing the inspection;
(iii) Results of the inspection, including the date, time, and
duration of the corrective action period from the time the inspection
indicated a problem to the time of the indication that the filter drop
sock was replaced or restored to proper operation.
(5) For each cyclone used to comply with the requirements in Sec.
63.11621(e), you must keep the records in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) Manufacturer's specifications.
(ii) Records of all quarterly inspections including the information
identified in paragraphs (c)(5)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) The date, place, and time of each inspection;
(B) Person performing the inspection;
(C) Results of the inspection, including the date, time, and
duration of the corrective action period from the time the inspection
indicated a problem to the time of the indication that the cyclone was
restored to proper operation.
(iii) Records of the daily pressure drop measurements, along with
the date, time, and duration of the correction action period from the
time the monitoring indicated a problem to the time of the indication
that the cyclone was restored to proper operation.
(6) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(7) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record
for 5 years following the date of each recorded action.
(8) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the
date of each recorded action according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You may
keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.11625 What parts of the General Provisions apply to my
facility?
Table 1 of this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.
Sec. 63.11626 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by EPA or a
delegated authority such as your state, local, or tribal agency. If the
EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your state, local, or
tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and
enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office to
find out if implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated
to your state, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a state, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section
are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the
state, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to state, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) Approval of an alternative nonopacity emissions standard under
Sec. 63.6(g).
(2) Approval of an alternative opacity emissions standard under
Sec. 63.6(h)(9).
(3) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A ``major change to test method'' is defined in
Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f). A
``major change to monitoring'' is defined in Sec. 63.90.
(5) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is
defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.11627 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA, in Sec. 63.2,
and in this section.
Cyclone means a mechanically aided collector that uses inertia to
separate particulate matter from the gas stream as it spirals through
the cyclone.
Daily production level means the average amount of prepared feed
product produced each day over a typical annual period.
Filter drop sock means a device at the loadout end of a bulk loader
that lessens fugitive emissions by containing the unloaded product
within the device thus preventing windblown and drop caused fugitive
emissions. Flexible spouts are considered filter drop socks.
Pelleting operations means all operations that make pelleted food
from meal, including but not limited to, the steam conditioning, die-
casting, drying, cooling, and crumbling, and granulation.
Prepared feed manufacturing facility means a facility that produces
feeds for large and small animals, not including dogs and cats.
Sec. 63.11628--63.11638 [Reserved]
Tables to Subpart DDDDDDD of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart DDDDDDD of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Prepared Feeds Manufacturing Area Sources
As required in Sec. 63.11619, you must meet each requirement in
the following table that applies to you.
Draft Part 63 General Provisions to be incorporated for Prepared
Feeds:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to Subpart
Citation Subject DDDDDDD?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1........................ Applicability....... Yes.
63.2........................ Definitions......... Yes.
63.3........................ Units and Yes.
Abbreviations.
63.4........................ Prohibited Yes.
Activities and
Circumvention.
63.5........................ Preconstruction No.
Review and
Notification
Requirements.
63.6(a),(b)(1)-(b)(5), Compliance with Yes.
(b)(7), (c), (f)(2)-(3), Standards and
(g), (i), and (j). Maintenance
Requirements.
63.6(e)(1), (e)(3), (f)(1), Startup, shutdown, No. Standards apply
and (h). and malfunction at all times,
requirements and including during
opacity/visible startup, shutdown,
emission standards. and malfunction
events.
63.7........................ Performance Testing No.
Requirements.
63.8........................ Monitoring Yes.
Requirements.
63.9(a), (b), (c), (d), (h), Notification Yes.
(i), and (j). Requirements..
63.9(e), (f), (g)........... .................... No
[[Page 36994]]
63.10(a),(b)(1),............ Recordkeeping and Yes.
(b)(2)(i)-(iii), (b)(2)(vi)- Reporting
(xiv), (c), (d)(1), (e), Requirements.
and (f).
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v), (b)(3), .................... No.
and (d)(2)-(5).
63.11....................... Control Device No.
Requirements.
63.12....................... State Authorities Yes.
and Delegations.
63.13....................... Addresses........... Yes.
63.14....................... Incorporations by Yes.
Reference.
63.15....................... Availability of Yes.
Information and
Confidentiality.
63.16....................... Performance Track Yes.
Provisions.
63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)-(9), Reserved............ No.
(b)(2), (c)(3)-(4), (d),
63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4),
(d), (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii),
(h)(3), (h)(5)(iv),
63.8(a)(3), 63.9(b)(3),
(h)(4), 63.10(c)(2)-(4),
(c)(9).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E9-17826 Filed 7-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P