National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Residual Risk and Technology Review, 30812-30846 [2019-13110]

Download as PDF 30812 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0208; FRL–9995–23– OAR] RIN 2060–AU17 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Residual Risk and Technology Review Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production. The source category addressed in this action is the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category. The EPA is proposing the results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR) that the EPA is required to conduct in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA). Based on the results of the EPA’s risk review, the Agency is proposing that risk due to emissions of air toxics from this source category is acceptable and that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Under the technology review, the EPA is proposing there are no developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that necessitate revision of the standards. Therefore, the EPA is proposing no revisions to the numerical emission limits based on these analyses. However, the EPA is proposing to revise provisions pertaining to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); add requirements for electronic reporting of certain notifications and reports and performance test results; and make other minor clarifications and corrections. Although the proposed amendments would not result in reductions in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), if finalized, they would result in improved compliance and implementation of the rule. DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before August 12, 2019. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before July 29, 2019. jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing on or before July 2, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https:// www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/solvent-extraction-vegetableoil-production-national-emission. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering for a public hearing. ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2019–0208, by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ (our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2019–0208 in the subject line of the message. • Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 0208. • Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 0208, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. • Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center’s hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except Federal holidays). Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change to https:// www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed action, contact Mr. Bill Schrock, Natural Resources Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143–03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 5032; fax number: (919) 541–0516; and email address: schrock.bill@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Matthew Woody, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539– 02), Office of Air Quality Planning and PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–1535; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and email address: woody.matthew@epa.gov. For questions about monitoring and testing requirements, contact Brandon Little, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243–05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 4059; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and email address: little.brandon@epa.gov. For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Maria Malave, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–7027; and email address: malave.maria@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541–0632 or by email at hunt.virginia@epa.gov to request a public hearing, to register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a public hearing will be held. Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0208. All documents in the docket are listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI (Confidential Business Information) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566– 1742. Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 0208. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https:// www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided, unless E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https:// www.regulations.gov or email. This type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through https:// www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https:// www.epa.gov/dockets. Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically within the digital storage media the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 complete version of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA’s electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2019–0208. Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here: AEGL acute exposure guideline level AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM–3 model BACT Best Available Control Technology CAA Clean Air Act CalEPA California EPA CBI Confidential Business Information CDX Central Data Exchange CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface CFR Code of Federal Regulations EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline ERT Electronic Reporting Tool HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) HCl hydrochloric acid HEM–3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.1.0 HF hydrogen fluoride HI hazard index HQ hazard quotient IRIS Integrated Risk Information System km kilometer LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate MACT maximum achievable control technology mg/kg-day milligrams per kilogram per day mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter MIR maximum individual risk NAICS North American Industry Classification System NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants NOPA National Oil Producers Association NSR New Source Review NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 30813 OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OMB Office of Management and Budget PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment PDF portable document format ppm parts per million QA quality assurance RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse REL reference exposure level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RfC reference concentration RfD reference dose RTR residual risk and technology review SAB Science Advisory Board SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index tpy tons per year TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure model UF uncertainty factor mg/m3 microgram per cubic meter UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act URE unit risk estimate VCS voluntary consensus standards Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions? C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? D. What other relevant background information and data are available? III. Analytical Procedures and DecisionMaking A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making? B. How do we perform the technology review? C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category? IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses? B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect? C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? D. What other actions are we proposing? E. What compliance dates are we proposing? V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? B. What are the air quality impacts? C. What are the cost impacts? D. What are the economic impacts? E. What are the benefits? E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 30814 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules VI. Request for Comments VII. Submitting Data Corrections VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) K. 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? Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated industrial source categories that are the subject of this proposal. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List, Final Report (see EPA–450/3–91–030, July 1992) as the ‘‘Vegetable Oil Production’’ source category, and subsequently revised to the ‘‘Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production’’ source category (66 FR 8220, January 30, 2001) is defined as any facility engaged in producing crude vegetable oil and meal products by removing oil from listed oilseeds through direct contact with an organic solvent. The term ‘‘oilseed’’ refers to the following agricultural products: Corn germ, cottonseed, flax, peanut, safflower, soybean, sunflower, and rapeseed (source of canola oil). TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION NESHAP Flour Milling ................................................................................. Wet Corn Milling ......................................................................... Fats and Oils Refining and Blending .......................................... Other Animal Food Manufacturing .............................................. Soybean and Other Oilseed Processing .................................... Fats and Oils Refining and Blending .......................................... Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production ....................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... 1 North 311211 311221 311225 311119 311224 311225 American Industry Classification System. B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at https://www.epa.gov/ stationary-sources-air-pollution/solventextraction-vegetable-oil-productionnational-emission. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this same website. Information on the overall RTR program is available at https://www3. epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0208). jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES NAICS code 1 Source category II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of the CAA VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards for emissions of HAP from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the ‘‘residual risk review.’’ In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to determine if there are ‘‘developments in practices, processes, or control technologies’’ that may be appropriate to incorporate into the standards. This review is commonly referred to as the ‘‘technology review.’’ When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, it is commonly referred to as the ‘‘risk and technology review.’’ The discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears in the document titled CAA Section 112 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking. In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different requirements for major source standards and area source standards. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. All other sources are ‘‘area sources.’’ For major sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ‘‘floor.’’ The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules than the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA discretion to set standards based on generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT standards. The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and addressing any remaining (i.e., ‘‘residual’’) risk according to CAA section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards, section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further expressly preserves the EPA’s use of the two-step approach for developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency’s interpretation of ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ developed in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11). The EPA subsequently adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) upheld the EPA’s interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) is a twostep approach. In the first step, the EPA determines whether risks are acceptable. This determination ‘‘considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 [cancer] risk (MIR) 1 of approximately 1 in 10 thousand.’’ 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health ‘‘in consideration of all health information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than approximately 1 in 1 million, as well as other relevant factors, including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors relevant to each particular decision.’’ Id. The EPA must promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. After conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, we consider whether a more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)’’ no less often than every 8 years. In conducting this review, which we call the ‘‘technology review,’’ the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions? The current NESHAP for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category was promulgated on April 12, 2001 (66 FR 19006), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG. As promulgated in 2001 and further amended on April 5, 2002 (67 FR 16317), and September 1, 2004 (69 FR 53338), the NESHAP regulates HAP emissions from solvent extraction for vegetable oil production processes at a facility that is a major source of HAP emissions. The affected source is each vegetable oil production process. A 1 Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum level of a pollutant for a lifetime. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 30815 vegetable oil production process means the equipment comprising a continuous process for producing crude vegetable oil and meal products, including specialty soybean products, in which oil is removed from oilseeds listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2840 through direct contact with an organic solvent. Process equipment typically includes the following components: Oilseed preparation operations (including conditioning, drying, dehulling, and cracking), solvent extractors, desolventizer-toasters, meal dryers, meal coolers, meal conveyor systems, oil distillation units, solvent evaporators and condensers, solvent recovery system (also referred to as a mineral oil absorption system), vessels storing solvent-laden materials, and crude meal packaging and storage vessels. A vegetable oil production process does not include vegetable oil refining operations (including operations such as bleaching, hydrogenation, and deodorizing) and operations that engage in additional chemical treatment of crude soybean meals produced in specialty desolventizer units (including operations such as soybean isolate production). The primary HAP emitted from vegetable oil production processes is nhexane. The EPA does not consider nhexane classifiable as a human carcinogen. However, short-term exposure to n-hexane can cause reactions such as irritations, dizziness, headaches, and nausea. Long-term exposure can cause permanent nerve damage. The current NESHAP restricts facilitywide n-hexane emissions by setting emission limitations based on the number of gallons of HAP lost per ton of oilseeds processed, expressed as oilseed solvent loss ratios. Facilities demonstrate compliance by calculating a compliance ratio comparing the actual HAP loss to the allowable HAP loss for the previous 12 operating months. Allowable HAP loss is based on the oilseed solvent loss ratios provided in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2840 of the rule for new and existing sources. Compliance is demonstrated when the facility’s calculated compliance ratio is less than 1 (i.e., the actual HAP loss is less than the calculated allowable HAP loss). Determination of compliance with the requirements of the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP requires the facility to keep records of the amount of n-hexane purchased, used, and recovered from the oilseed extraction process, the amount of oilseed processed, and the volume fraction of each HAP exceeding 1 percent in the extraction solvent used. E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 30816 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules Facilities may also adjust their solvent loss to account for cases where solvent is routed through a closed vent system to a control device that is used to reduce emissions to meet the standard. Based on our search of the National Emission Inventory (NEI), the EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database (https:// www.echo.epa.gov/), and consultation with industry representatives and EPA Regional offices, as of August 2018, there are 89 vegetable oil production facilities in operation and subject to the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP. A complete list of facilities that are currently subject to the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP is available in Appendix A of the memorandum, Residual Risk Modeling File Documentation for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category, which is available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 0208. jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? The EPA used several means to collect the information necessary to conduct the residual risk assessment and technology review for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category. To confirm whether facilities identified as potentially subject to the NESHAP were, in fact, subject to the standards, we reviewed compliance data in the EPA’s ECHO database and requested air operating permits from various state and local agencies and EPA Regional offices. Additional Web searches (online news articles, company and trade organization websites, and review of Google Earth® satellite and street view imagery) were conducted to verify facility acquisition or closure. After developing our list of affected facilities, the status of these facilities was confirmed in consultation with the National Oil Producers Association (NOPA). The EPA conducted site visits at two facilities and conducted calls with NOPA representatives and member facilities regarding the facilities’ production process and emission sources, available emissions data and emissions estimates, measures used to control emissions, and other aspects of facility operations. The facility-specific information from state and local agencies and companies with affected facilities provided support for this action’s risk and technology reviews. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 D. What other relevant background information and data are available? The EPA used multiple sources of information to support this proposed action. Before developing the list of affected facilities described in section II.C of this preamble, the EPA’s ECHO database was used as a tool to identify potentially affected facilities with vegetable oil production operations using solvent extraction that are subject to the NESHAP. The ECHO database provides integrated compliance and enforcement information for approximately 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide. The 2011 and 2014 NEI databases provided facility-specific data and MACT category data that were used in developing the modeling file for the risk review. The NEI is a database that contains information about sources that emit criteria air pollutants, their precursors, and HAP. The database includes estimates of annual air pollutant emissions from point, nonpoint, and mobile sources in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The EPA collects this information and releases an updated version of the NEI database every 3 years. The 2014 NEI was used because it was the most recent version available; 2011 NEI data was used to supplement the information in the 2014 NEI (e.g., if a facility reported hexane loss as volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the 2014 NEI and as HAP in the 2011 NEI). The NEI includes information necessary for conducting risk modeling, including annual HAP emissions estimates from individual emission points at facilities and the related emissions release parameters. The EPA also consulted the 2014 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) database for assessment of facility-specific data for development of the modeling file. The TRI database is a regularly updated dataset encompassing over 30 years of information. The TRI compiles reported annual air pollutant emissions from U.S. facilities from 30 industrial sectors and provides information about toxic chemical releases and pollution prevention activities reported by individual industrial and Federal facilities. The EPA collects the reported information, conducts data quality checks, and provides the information to the public through several internetbased tools and applications. The TRI provides individual HAP emissions estimates on a facility-level basis. In conducting the technology review, we examined state air operating permits and related documentation, including permit applications, supporting PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 documents and inventories, and consent decrees. We also reviewed information in the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)/Best Available Control Technology (BACT)/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) Clearinghouse (RBLC) to identify technologies in use and determine if there have been developments in practices, processes, or control technologies. The RBLC is a database that contains case-specific information of air pollution technologies that have been required to reduce the emissions of air pollutants from stationary sources. Under the EPA’s New Source Review (NSR) program, if a facility is planning new construction or a modification that will increase the air emissions by a large amount, an NSR permit must be obtained. This central database promotes the sharing of information among permitting agencies and aids in case-by-case determinations for NSR permits. The EPA also reviewed other information sources to determine if there have been developments in practices, processes, or control technologies in the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category. We reviewed regulatory actions for emission sources similar to those included in the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category, including sources engaged in solvent use and recovery operations, and conducted a review of literature published by industry organizations, technical journals, and government organizations. III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this proposal. A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making? As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, ‘‘the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to any single factor’’ and, thus, ‘‘[t]he Administrator believes that the acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk measures and information.’’ 54 FR 38046, September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules ample margin of safety determination, ‘‘the Agency again considers all of the health risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant factors.’’ Id. The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index (HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.2 The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA’s risk analysis is consistent with the EPA’s response to comments on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that: jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES [t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any particular measure of public health risk from the EPA’s consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are appropriate to determining what will ‘protect the public health’.’’ See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risk. The Benzene NESHAP explained that ‘‘an MIR of 2 The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP exposure concentration to the noncancer doseresponse value; the HI is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ system. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 approximately one in 10 thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other health risk factors.’’ Id. at 38045. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP that: ‘‘EPA believes the relative weight of the many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along with the health-related factors) vary from source category to source category.’’ Id. at 38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated with the various risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety. The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions from other facilities that do not include the source category under review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity of the sources in the category. The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an individual’s total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 30817 May 2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ‘‘that RTR assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions from other sources in the area.’’ 3 In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those reflected in this proposal. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens affecting the same target organ or target organ system. Although the EPA is interested in placing source category and facilitywide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources combined in the vicinity of each source, the EPA is concerned about the uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the assessments too unreliable. B. How do we perform the technology review? Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility, estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of whether it is ‘‘necessary’’ to revise the emissions standards. In 3 Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Methods Panel are provided in their report, which is available at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 30818 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we consider any of the following to be a ‘‘development’’: • Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was not identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards; • Any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment (that were identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions reduction; • Any work practice or operational procedure that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; • Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; and • Any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original MACT standards). In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed and last updated the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. See sections II.C and II.D of this preamble for information on the specific data sources that were reviewed as part of the technology review. C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category? In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process. In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB–HAP), we would not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section IV.A of this preamble). The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The seven sections that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains the following document which provides more information on the risk assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to assess risk (as described in the seven primary steps below) are consistent with those described by the EPA in the document reviewed by a panel of the EPA’s SAB in 2009; 4 and described in the SAB review report issued in 2010. They are also consistent with the key recommendations contained in that report. 1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions release characteristics? Data for 93 vegetable oil production process lines at 88 facilities were used to create the RTR emissions dataset as described in sections II.C and II.D of this preamble. We identified one additional vegetable oil production process line at one newly constructed facility, which did not begin operations until January 2018. At the time of the development of the RTR emissions dataset, emissions data were not available for the new facility, therefore, only 88 of 89 known facilities are included. The emission sources included in the RTR emissions dataset are the collection of oilseed preparation operations (including conditioning, drying, dehulling, and cracking), solvent extractors, desolventizer-toasters, meal dryers, meal coolers, meal conveyor systems, oil distillation units, solvent evaporators and condensers, solvent recovery systems (also referred to as mineral oil absorption systems), vessels storing solvent-laden materials, and crude meal packaging and storage vessels, which are the primary HAP emission sources 4 U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies— MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA–452/R–09– 006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/ rtrpg.html. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 at vegetable oil production facilities and currently regulated by the NESHAP. As stated in section II.B of this preamble, the primary HAP emitted from these emissions sources is nhexane, which accounts for 99.9 percent of emissions from the source category. For nine facilities, the facility data reported to the NEI from these emissions sources was reported as VOC instead of n-hexane. For these facilities, the reported VOC emissions were assumed as 100- percent n-hexane. We made this assumption to provide a conservative estimate of risk, as the nhexane content of most commercially available solvents is generally 64 percent (with remaining content composed of non-HAP materials). For a very small number of facilities (six), emissions of additional HAP, including acrolein, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and methanol, appeared to exhaust from emission points within the source category. Although these HAP are not used in or a result of solvent extraction and are likely from collocated ethanol processing facilities, oilseed conditioning, vegetable oil refining, or chemical treatment operations (such as bleaching, hydrogenation, or deodorizing processes) that exhaust through similar stacks, we could not definitively determine whether they should be excluded from the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category. Because they could not be easily separated from the source category emissions for modeling purposes, we included these HAP in the modeling file to provide a conservative estimate of risk. Actual emission estimates for the vegetable oil production process equipment at the 88 affected facilities included in the dataset were based on 2011 and 2014 NEI data, 2014 TRI data, and inventories provided by individual facilities. Actual emission rates were provided separately for one facility (Cargill Corn Milling North America— Blair, Nebraska), due to discrepancies in the data reported to the NEI, and were based on facility testing and emission inventory data. Stack parameter data provided in the 2014 NEI, in addition to information identified from facility permits and associated documents, was used to assign actual emissions separately for these emission sources to individual emission release points (either as stack points or as fugitive emissions). For each emission release point, emissions release characteristic data such as emission release height, diameter, temperature, velocity, flow rate, and locational latitude/longitude coordinates were identified. The RTR emissions dataset also includes E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES emissions reported as complete process solvent loss, which represent the facility’s combined n-hexane emissions, and were reported to the NEI or TRI as a single emissions release point (either fugitive or stack emissions). Because facilities in the source category typically vent their process units to a solvent recovery system for n-hexane recovery, the RTR database retains these emissions as emitted from either a single stack or fugitive point. Where site-specific information was incomplete, the EPA estimated stack parameters and calculated industry averages using the available data, or assigned default parameter values based on MACT source category 2014 NEI information where there was insufficient information. The EPA conducted a quality assurance (QA) check of source locations, emission release characteristics, and annual emissions estimates for all facilities. Additional details on the data and methods used to develop actual emissions estimates for the risk modeling, including the EPA’s QA review, are provided in the memorandum, Residual Risk Modeling File Documentation for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category, which is available in the docket for this action. 2. How did we estimate MACTallowable emissions? The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time period. These ‘‘actual’’ emission levels are often lower than the emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred to as the ‘‘MACT-allowable’’ emissions. We discussed the consideration of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.) The EPA determined annual MACTallowable emissions by evaluating and VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 estimating an average emissions multiplier for the industry. We reviewed permits for a subset of facilities in the source category to determine the permitted annual allowable emissions based on individual permit limits that demonstrated compliance with the MACT standard. The permitted annual allowable emissions for each facility were then compared to the actual annual emissions reported for each facility in the 2014 NEI to develop a ratio that reflects the current compliance margin for these facilities. The calculated ratio of permit allowable emissions to actual emissions is 3.139:1, so a multiplier of 3.139 was selected. We applied the multiplier to the actual emissions of the remaining facilities to estimate the allowable emissions for these facilities. We considered the estimated emissions multiplier a conservative estimate of MACTallowable emissions as the reported actual emissions reflected only 20 to 30 percent of facilities’ permitted emission rates, on average. Additionally, we note that the MACT annual-allowable emissions conservatively assume that all loss of n-hexane in the solvent extraction process is emitted to the atmosphere. However, we note that the solvent extraction process results in a portion of the solvent (less than 100 parts per million) remaining in the crushed seed meal. Therefore, the estimated allowable emissions likely reflect higher emissions than are emitted by the process. 3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk? Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risk from the source category addressed in this proposal were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM–3).5 The HEM–3 performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response information. a. Dispersion Modeling The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM–3 model, is one of the 5 For more information about HEM–3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-andmodeling-human-exposure-model-hem. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 30819 EPA’s preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations from industrial facilities.6 To perform the dispersion modeling and to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 draws on three data libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block 7 internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health risk. These are discussed below. b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted by each source in the source category. The HAP air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian dispersion models, including AERMOD. For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3)) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is an upper-bound estimate of an individual’s incremental risk of contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk 6 U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 2005). 7 A census block is the smallest geographic area for which census statistics are tabulated. E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 30820 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES assessments, we generally use UREs from the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In cases where new, scientifically credible doseresponse values have been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such doseresponse values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/ dose-response-assessment-assessinghealth-risks-associated-exposurehazardous-air-pollutants. To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP 8 emitted by the modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within 50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the highest individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then 8 The EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment classifies carcinogens as: ‘‘carcinogenic to humans,’’ ‘‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans,’’ and ‘‘suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential.’’ These classifications also coincide with the terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the terms advocated in the EPA’s Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document, Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R–00/002), was published as a supplement to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from https:// cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid= 20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA’s SAB in their 2002 peer review of the EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) titled NATA—Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data— an SAB Advisory, available at https:// yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ ecadv02001.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 dividing this result by a 70-year lifetime. To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ‘‘an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime’’ (https:// iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/ termreg/searchandretrieve/ glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do? details=&vocabName=IRIS %20Glossary). In cases where an RfC from the EPA’s IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA: (1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (https:// www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/ crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hotspots-program-guidance-manualpreparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as noted above, a scientifically credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to estimate health risks are available at https:// www.epa.gov/fera/dose-responseassessment-assessing-health-risksassociated-exposure-hazardous-airpollutants. c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other Than Cancer For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 exposure location. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of our efforts to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and the environment,9 the EPA is revising our treatment of meteorological data to use reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions in our acute risk screening assessments instead of worst-case air dispersion conditions. This revised treatment of meteorological data and the supporting rationale are described in more detail in Residual Risk Assessment for the Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. We will be applying this revision in RTR rulemakings proposed on or after June 3, 2019. To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission point,10 reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile), and the point of highest off-site exposure. Specifically, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable worstcase air dispersion conditions co-occur and that a person is present at the point of maximum exposure. To characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use multiple acute doseresponse values, including acute RELs, acute exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations), if available, to calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the estimated acute exposure concentration by the acute dose-response value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available, the EPA calculates acute HQs. An acute REL is defined as ‘‘the concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated 9 See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft Report, May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html). 10 In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a categoryspecific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. Both are available in the docket for this rulemaking. E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules for a specified exposure duration.’’ 11 Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.12 They are guideline levels for ‘‘once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.’’ Id. at 21. The AEGL–1 is specifically defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’ The document also notes that ‘‘Airborne concentrations below AEGL–1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.’’ Id. AEGL–2 are defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed as parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to escape.’’ Id. ERPGs are ‘‘developed for emergency planning and are intended as healthbased guideline concentrations for jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES 11 CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8hour values are documented in Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-relsummary. 12 National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ files/2015–09/documents/sop_final_standing_ operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National Academies to publish final AEGLs (https:// www.epa.gov/aegl). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 single exposures to chemicals.’’ 13 Id. at 1. The ERPG–1 is defined as ‘‘the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving a clearly defined, objectionable odor.’’ Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG–2 is defined as ‘‘the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual’s ability to take protective action.’’ Id. at 1. An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than its corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1. Even though their definitions are slightly different, AEGL–1s are often the same as the corresponding ERPG–1s, and AEGL–2s are often equal to ERPG– 2s. The maximum HQs from our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-response value (usually the AEGL–1 and/or the ERPG–1). For this source category, the EPA estimated peak, short-term emissions using the available annual emissions data from the NEI. In previous RTR rulemakings, the EPA has assumed that a facility’s peak, 1-hour emission rate could exceed its annual average hourly emission rate by as much as a factor of 10, accounting for process variability, less-than-full-time operations, and other factors.14 Because we had no information indicating that peak emissions were lower, we chose to use a default multiplier of 10 to estimate acute emissions from the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category. Acute emissions values were calculated by multiplying the actual emissions by 10. In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs 13 ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/ AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponse PlanningGuidelines/Documents/ ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20 Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20 March%202014%20Revision%20% 28Updated%2010–2–2014%29.pdf. 14 This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. Both are available in the docket for this rulemaking. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 30821 are less than or equal to 1, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we assess the site-specific data to ensure that the acute HQ is at an off-site location. For this source category, the data refinements employed consisted of ensuring the locations where the maximum HQ occurred were off facility property and where the public could potentially be exposed. These refinements are discussed more fully in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this source category. 4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening assessment? The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine whether any sources in the source category emit any PB–HAP, as identified in the EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (See Volume 1, Appendix D, at https://www2.epa.gov/ fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-airtoxics-risk-assessment-reference-library. For the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category, we did not identify emissions of any PB–HAP. Because we did not identify PB–HAP emissions, no further evaluation of multipathway risk was conducted for this source category. For further information on the multipathway assessment approach, see the Residual Risk Assessment for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2018 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. 5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment? The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential for an adverse environmental effect as required under section 112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ‘‘adverse environmental effect’’ as ‘‘any significant and widespread adverse effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of environmental quality over broad areas.’’ E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 30822 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as ‘‘environmental HAP,’’ in its screening assessment: Six PB– HAP and two acid gases. The PB–HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, polycyclic organic matter, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid gases included in the screening assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF). HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. For the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category, we did not identify emissions of any environmental HAP. Because we did not identify environmental HAP emissions, no further evaluation of environmental risk was conducted for this source category. 6. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments? To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine the risks from the entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the facility includes all HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data. For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment using a dataset that the EPA compiled from the 2014 NEI. We used the NEI data for the facility and did not adjust any category or ‘‘non-category’’ data. Therefore, there could be differences in the dataset from that used for the source category assessments described in this preamble. We analyzed risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted ‘‘facility-wide’’ for the populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, we made a reasonable attempt to identify the source category risks, and these risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source category addressed in this proposal. We also specifically examined the facility that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of interest. The Residual Risk VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 Assessment for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available through the docket for this action, provides the methodology and results of the facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the percentage of source category contribution to facility-wide risks. 7. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment? Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. If a multipathway site-specific assessment was performed for this source category, a full discussion of the uncertainties associated with that assessment can be found in Appendix 11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment Report. a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved QA/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly emission rates, which are intended to PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations. b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration estimates associated with any model, including the EPA’s recommended regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts (e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels (e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability. c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the block centroids to better represent E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules the population in the blocks. We also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block is not well represented by a single location. jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively, and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that is stated in the EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment; namely, that ‘‘the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including default options that are used in the absence of scientific data to the contrary, should be health protective’’ (EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1–7). This is the approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs. Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.15 That is, they represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the true value of a quantity’’ (although this is usually not a true statistical confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.16 Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To derive dose-response values that are intended to be ‘‘without appreciable risk,’’ the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor (UF) approach,17 which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response 15 IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_ internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/ glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=& glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary). 16 An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum likelihood estimates. 17 See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002 available at: https://www.epa.gov/ sites/production/files/2014-12/documents/rfdfinal.pdf, and Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994 available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201411/documents/rfc_methodology.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of deleterious effects. Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties. Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but not all combinations of ecological assessment/ environmental HAP had benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and widespread. For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly, for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds in the group to estimate risk. e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 30823 depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of a person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile) cooccur. We then include the additional assumption that a person is located at this point at the same time. Together, these assumptions represent a reasonable worst-case exposure scenario. In most cases, it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously. IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses? As described above, for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category, we conducted an inhalation risk assessment for all HAP emitted. We present results of the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. 1. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results The results of the chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk assessment indicate that, based on estimates of current actual and allowable emissions, the MIR posed by the source category is less than 1-in-1 million. The total estimated cancer incidence based on actual emission levels is 0.00005 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 20,000 years, and for allowable emissions is 0.0002 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 5,000 years driven by emissions of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. The population exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million considering actual and allowable emissions is 0 (see Table 2 of this preamble). The maximum modeled chronic noncancer TOSHI for the source category based on actual emissions is estimated to be 0.7 and, for allowable emissions, is estimated to be 2, with n-hexane emissions accounting for the TOSHI. Approximately 13 people are estimated to have exposures resulting in E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 30824 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules a TOSHI greater than 1 if exposed to allowable emissions from this source category. TABLE 2—SOLVENT EXTRACTION FOR VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCTION INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS Number of Estimated population at increased risk of cancer ≥ 1-in-1 million Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million) 2 facilities 1 88 ............................................................ Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 3 Estimated annual cancer incidence (cases per year) Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ Based on Actual Emissions Level <1 .................... 0 ...................... 0.00005 ...................... 0.7 (n-hexane) ........... HQREL = 0.7 (acrolein). Based on Allowable Emissions Level < 1 ................... 0 ...................... 0.0002 ........................ 2 (n-hexane) .............. N/A. 1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category. 3 The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category is the nervous system (neurocognitive and neurobehavioral effects). 2. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results As presented in Table 2 of this preamble, the acute exposures to emissions from the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category result in a maximum HQ < 1 (0.7 based on the REL for acrolein). For more detail on the screening level acute risk assessment results, refer to the draft residual risk document: Residual Risk Assessment for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. 3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results For the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category, we did not identify emissions of any PB–HAP. Because we did not identify PB–HAP emissions, no further evaluation of multipathway risk was conducted for this source category. jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES 4. Environmental Risk Screening Results For the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category, we did not identify emissions of any environmental HAP. Because we did not identify environmental HAP emissions, no further evaluation of environmental risk was conducted for this source category. 5. Facility-Wide Risk Results An assessment of facility-wide risks was performed as described above to characterize the source category risk in the context of facility-wide risks. Facility-wide risks were estimated using the NEI-based data described in section II.D of this preamble. The maximum lifetime individual cancer risk posed by VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 the 88 facilities, based on facility-wide emissions, is 5-in-1 million with cadmium, nickel, arsenic, chromium (VI), and formaldehyde emissions from facility-wide external combustion boilers driving the risk. Regarding the noncancer risk assessment, the maximum chronic noncancer HI posed by facility-wide emissions is estimated to be 0.7 (for the nervous system) driven by source category n-hexane emissions. 6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation? To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category across different demographic groups within the populations living near facilities.18 Results of the demographic analysis indicate that, for 6 of the 11 demographic groups, minority, African American, ages 0 to 17, ages 18 to 64, over 25 without a high school diploma, and below the poverty level, the percentage of the population living within 5 km of facilities in the source category is greater than the corresponding national percentage for 18 Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White, African American, Native American, other races and multiracial, Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated people. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 the same demographic groups. When examining the risk levels of those exposed to emissions from solvent extraction for vegetable oil production facilities, we find that no one is exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production, available in the docket for this action. B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect? 1. Risk Acceptability As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ‘‘a two-step standard-setting approach, with an analytical first step to determine an ‘acceptable risk’ that considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand.’’ (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). In this proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable emissions from the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category. In determining whether risks are acceptable, the EPA considered all available health information and risk estimation uncertainty, as described above. The results indicate that both the actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are less than 1-in-1 million, well below the E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES presumptive limit of acceptability of 100-in-1 million. The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI due to inhalation exposures is less than 1 for actual emissions. For MACT-allowable emissions, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI due to inhalation exposures is 2, and an estimated 13 people exposed to allowable emissions would have a TOSHI greater than 1 due to n-hexane. Finally, the results of the acute screening analysis showed that acute risks were below a level of concern. Taking into account this information, the EPA proposes that the risks remaining after implementation of the existing MACT standards for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category are acceptable. 2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures (including those considered under the technology review) that could be applied in this source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in the risk assessment. Although the EPA is proposing that the risks from this source category are acceptable, the maximum HI for allowable emissions is 2 (caused by nhexane emissions from fugitive process solvent loss). In addition, the HQ for acrolein is 0.7 as a result of acrolein emissions from flaker conditioner aspiration and cooker expeller aspiration. We considered whether the MACT standards applicable to these emission points in particular, as well as all the current MACT standards applicable to this source category, provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. We identified in BACT analyses performed for two vegetable oil production processes the consideration of a cryogenic condenser after the main vent as an add-on control option for the reduction of n-hexane. Our analysis found that the use of a cryogenic condenser on the main vent is not cost effective for reduction of HAP ($61,694/ ton). Therefore, the EPA is proposing that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and revision of the standards is not required. 3. Adverse Environmental Effect For the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category, we did not identify emissions of any environmental HAP. Because we VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 did not identify environmental HAP emissions, we expect no adverse environmental effects and are proposing that more stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for control of n-hexane emissions from vegetable oil production facilities. In conducting the technology review, we reviewed information on practices, processes, and control technologies that were not considered during the development of the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP and looked for information on improvements in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the development of the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP. The review included a search of the RBLC database and reviews of air permits for vegetable oil production facilities, regulatory actions for emission sources similar to vegetable oil production process sources, site visits to operating vegetable oil production facilities, including the newest U.S. facility, and a review of relevant literature. After reviewing information from the aforementioned sources, we did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies to reduce n-hexane emissions from the vegetable oil production facilities. In the BACT analyses performed for two vegetable oil production processes, we identified the use of a cryogenic condenser after the main vent as a possible an add-on control option. Our analysis found that the use of a cryogenic condenser on the main vent is not cost effective for reduction of HAP ($61,694/ton). Additionally, our analysis found no additional significant or cost-effective changes in the practices, processes, and control technologies that may be used by vegetable oil production facilities that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this source category. Therefore, the EPA is proposing that revisions to the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP are not necessary based on our review under CAA section 112(d)(6). Additional details of our technology review can be found in the memorandum, CAA Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category, which is available in PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 30825 the docket for this action. We solicit comment on our proposed decision. D. What other actions are we proposing? In addition to the proposed actions described above, the EPA is proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. The EPA is proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. We also are proposing various other changes to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements and miscellaneous other technical and editorial changes to the regulatory text. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed below. 1. SSM Requirements In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA’s requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. The EPA is proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule, which appears at 40 CFR 63.2840(a) and Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870 (General Provisions Applicability Table). Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA is proposing that standards in this rule apply at all times. The EPA is also proposing several revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table as explained in more detail below. For example, the EPA is proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions’ requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions the EPA is proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. The EPA is specifically seeking comment on whether we have successfully done so. In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 30826 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES startup and shutdown periods. The proposed standards would apply at all times during shutdown and malfunction. For the reasons explained below, the EPA is proposing alternate standards for initial startup periods. The standards, as promulgated in 2001, provide an option for facilities to meet separate compliance requirements during periods of initial startup for new and significantly modified sources. Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850 provides the requirements for compliance with the HAP emissions standards during periods of normal operation, initial startup periods, or malfunction periods. Both new/reconstructed sources and modified sources may comply by meeting the requirements for periods of normal operation in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. However, the standards also provide that for a period of up to 6 months after startup of a new/ reconstructed source, the new source may meet separate compliance requirements for initial startup periods in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. For significantly modified sources, the standards provide an initial startup period of up to 3 months after startup.19 The initial startup period provisions were provided in the 2001 final rule with the recognition that the MACT limits, which are based on calculating a compliance ratio of a facility’s actual HAP loss emissions to allowable HAP loss emissions over a 12-month period, apply to the entire vegetable oil production process, and that the MACT allowables were based on periods of normal operation. In lieu of add-on control equipment to specific pieces of equipment, control of n-hexane emissions at vegetable oil production facilities is accomplished through solvent recovery, and is based on interrelated process equipment that is often custom built to the specific configuration and needs of the plant. During an initial startup period, facility equipment is tested, added, or replaced as the facility gradually increases production, and emissions during this period may reflect variances that are not generally reflective of normal or steadystate operations. New and modified equipment is often brought online in a phased approach, and each phase can require adjustments in both new and 19 Significant modifications to existing sources include replacement of or major changes to solvent recovery equipment such as extractors, desolventizer-toasters/dryer-coolers, flash desolventizers, and distillation equipment associated with the mineral oil system, and equipment affecting desolventizing efficiency and steady-state operation of the vegetable oil production process such as flaking mills, oilseed heating and conditioning equipment, and cracking mills. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 existing equipment in the process in order to identify and correct problems, such as equipment that is not operating as designed and requires repair or replacement. The 2001 MACT floor solvent loss allowables are based on emissions data from normal operating periods achieved after facilities reached their steady-state production rates, and do not account for emissions during these initial startup periods. Therefore the HAP emissions during an initial startup period were excluded from the 12-month rolling compliance determinations. Sources were instead required to minimize emissions to the extent practicable throughout the initial startup period, following the facility’s SSM plan. Because the EPA is proposing to eliminate the SSM provisions for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category, we evaluated the available data to establish potential standards for periods of initial startup. The EPA reviewed operating permits from various state and local agencies and EPA Regional offices to identify new facilities operating in an initial startup period. Construction of new or modification of existing vegetable oil production facilities happens relatively infrequently (every 5–6 years), and there are a limited number of facilities that have modified or constructed following the promulgation of the final rule. The standards do not require—and state, local, and regional offices have not collected—emissions data for these facilities during their initial startup periods. In our review of permits for newly constructed sources, the Agency identified one recently constructed facility (January 2018) with permitted MACT solvent loss allowables for an initial startup period. However, we determined that the allowables for the facility were not based on measured data, and further, because the facility is located in a non-attainment area and manufactures only one type of oilseed, the permitted solvent loss allowables would not be representative of initial startup periods for other facilities in the source category. Although we requested information on emissions and the operation of processes during initial startup periods in our consultations with industry, we did not receive any emissions data collected during an initial startup period, and are unsure these data exist. The Agency recognizes that the initial startup period, which is a one-time event for new sources and an infrequent event for signficantly modified sources, is not a typical startup period that may occur as part of routine or seasonal PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 startups of a plant, and includes evaluation and replacement of new equipment as each phase is brought online and production is gradually increased. As such, the initial startup period reflects a non-steady state of operations and production. The current standards are production-based and limit emissions by the HAP lost per ton of oilseeds processed. Because the initial startup period reflects a nonsteady state of production, emissions testing during this period would not likely be representative or acquire meaningful results. Therefore, emissions testing during initial startup would be both economically and technically infeasible. Consequently, the EPA is proposing a work practice standard rather than an emissions limit for periods of initial startup. Based on the information available in permits and obtained from NOPA, we have concluded that certain process solvent recovery equipment, including mineral oil scrubbers and condensers, could be operated normally during periods of initial startup. Further, facilities set site-specific operating ranges for temperature and vacuum for the desolventizing and oil distillation units to maximize solvent recovery. Therefore, the EPA is proposing that facilities operating in an initial startup period would operate the mineral oil absorption system and solvent condensers at all times during the initial startup period. The EPA is also proposing that facilities establish and follow site-specific operating ranges for temperature and vacuum for the desolventizing and oil distillation units associated with solvent recovery. Facilities would also continue to have the option to meet the requirements for normal operating periods in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. We anticipate that the proposed work practices would minimize solvent losses and emissions of n-hexane from solvent extraction operations during the initial startup period by maximizing solvent recovery. The EPA is proposing that facilities following the initial startup period would include parameters for the work practice standards in their compliance plan in 40 CFR 63.2851, and are proposing associated recordkeeping and reporting for these periods, as discussed in sections IV.D.1.e and IV.D.1.f of this preamble. We anticipate that facilities would already conduct these work practice standards during their initial startup periods, and we do not expect any costs of control with this proposed work practice requirement. However, the EPA is soliciting information on other industry best practices and the E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules best level of emission control during initial startup periods for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category. The EPA is also soliciting information on the costs associated with these practices. In addition, the EPA is soliciting specific supporting data on HAP emissions during initial startup periods for this category, including whether the data are from a new or modified source, the duration of the initial startup period, the total solvent usage and total solvent loss during the initial startup period, and the estimate of HAP emitted during the initial startup period. The EPA is proposing to revise the definition of ‘‘initial startup period.’’ The proposed revisions are necessary to clarify the time at which an initial startup period ends and a normal operating period begins. The 2001 MACT rule provided that the initial startup period of a new or reconstructed source consisted of 6 calendar months, and the initial startup period following a significant modification consisted of 3 calendar months. The EPA is proposing to revise this definition and the requirements of 40 CFR 62.2850(c)(2) and (d)(2) to clarify that the end of the initial startup period is based on when the plant meets and maintains steadystate operations, defined as operating at or above 90 percent of the extractor nominal design production rate or at or above 90 percent of the production rate in the plant’s permit for 15 consecutive days, not to exceed 6 calendar months after startup for new or reconstructed sources or 3 calendar months after startup for modified sources. The proposed definition would clarify that new or reconstructed sources that reach steady-state production prior to the end of the 6-month period or modified sources that reach steady-state production prior to the end of the 3-month period would be required to meet the requirements in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850 for sources under normal operation, and, thus, minimizing the initial startup period. Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.2) (Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase ‘‘average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of’’ sources ‘‘says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.’’ Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (DCCir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a ‘‘normal or usual manner’’ and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section 112 standards. As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (‘‘the EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of circumstances.’’) As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (‘‘The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of datagathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency’s decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to ‘invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.’ ’’). See also, PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 30827 Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (DC Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.’’). In addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal goes offline as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The source’s emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a wellperforming non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in releases from pressure relief devises or emergency flaring events because the EPA had information to determine that such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers (80 FR 75178, 75211–14, December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such information. E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES 30828 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules The EPA anticipates that it is unlikely that a malfunction will result in a violation of the standard, and, therefore, the EPA is proposing to remove malfunction periods as a source operating status. The MACT standards are based on calculating a compliance ratio of a facility’s actual HAP loss emissions to allowable HAP loss emissions over a 12-month rolling period, and apply to the entire vegetable oil production process. Therefore, the malfunction of a singular piece of equipment in a single month over this period is unlikely to result in an exceedance of the standard. However, it is possible that a malfunction could result in a violation of the standards; therefore, the EPA is considering the need for a work practice for periods of malfunction for these facilities. For example, the EPA has received information that it is possible that a malfunction of the extractor for sources in the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category could potentially result in an emissions increase and potential violation of the emissions limit. During these periods, it is possible that an immediate line shutdown may not be feasible due to safety concerns. Such a major malfunction could lead to solvent losses that could result in multiple months of exceedances. In those cases, it may be appropriate to establish a standard for malfunctions. We would anticipate that a separate standard would be in the form of a work practice standard. Therefore, the EPA is soliciting information on the type of events that constitute a malfunction event, and industry best practices and the best level of emission control during such malfunction events for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category. The EPA is also soliciting information on the cost savings associated with these practices. In addition, the EPA is soliciting specific supporting data on HAP emissions during malfunction events for this category, including the cause of malfunction, the frequency of malfunction, duration of malfunction, and the estimate of HAP emitted during each malfunction. In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source’s failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (Definition of malfunction). If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the Federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate. In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA, and, in particular, CAA section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606– 610 (2016). a. 40 CFR 63.2840 General Duty The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability Table (Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ‘‘Yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘No.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. The EPA is proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.2840(g) to reflect the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations, startup, and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.2840(g) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). The EPA is also proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability Table (Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ‘‘Yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘No.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.2840(g). b. SSM Plan The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability Table (Table 1 of section 63.2870) entries for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(i) through (e)(3)(ii), 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(v) through (vii), and 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(viii) and (ix) by changing the ‘‘Yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘No.’’ The EPA is also proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.2852, which cross-references the requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3). Generally, these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary. c. Compliance With Standards The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability Table (Table 1 of section 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by revising the text in column 4 and removing the text in column 5. The current language in column 4 states that 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) does not apply and column 5 states that the ‘‘Subpart GGGG does not have nonopacity requirements.’’ This appears to be an error in the final rule, because 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG, includes non-opacity requirements. The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times. Therefore, the EPA is revising the text in columns 4 and 5 to clarify that the SSM exemption previously applied but will not apply going forward. d. 40 CFR 63.2853 Performance Testing The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability Table (Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ‘‘Yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘No.’’ The General Provisions in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.2853(a)(5)(i)(A). The performance testing requirements the EPA is proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being considered ‘‘representative’’ for purposes of performance testing. The proposed performance testing provisions do not allow performance testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG, should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is proposing to add language in 40 CFR 63.2853(a)(5)(i)(A) that requires the owner or operator to record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. The General Provisions in 40 CFR 63.7(e) require that the owner or operator make available to the Administrator such records ‘‘as may be necessary to determine the condition of the performance test’’ available to the Administrator upon request, but does not specifically identify the information to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the information. e. 40 CFR 63.2862 Recordkeeping The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability Table (Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ‘‘Yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘No.’’ The requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) describe the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. The EPA is instead proposing to add recordkeeping requirements to 40 CFR 63.2862(f). When a source is subject to a different standard during initial startup, it will be important to know when such initial startup periods begin and end in order to determine compliance with the appropriate standard. Thus, the EPA is proposing to add language to 40 CFR 63.2862(f) requiring that owners or operators of sources subject to a work practice standard during initial startup VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 times must report a description and dates of the initial startup period, the reason it qualifies as an initial startup period, an estimate of the solvent loss in gallons for the duration of the initial startup, and the nominal design rate and operating rate of the extractor or the permitted and actual production rates for the duration of the initial startup period. The EPA is also proposing that sources would be required to record information supporting the work practice standards, including: (1) Measured temperature and pressure for desolventizing and oil distillation units, (2) an indication that the mineral oil absorpotion system was operating at all times, and (3) an indication that the solvent condensers were operating at all times. The proposed records are required to demonstrate that the work practice standards have been met for periods of initial startup. The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability Table (Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ‘‘Yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘No.’’ The General Provisions in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describe the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing to tailor recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2862(g). Instead of requiring source owners or operators to create and retain a record of the ‘‘occurrence and duration of each malfunction’’ of process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment, the rule proposes that this requirement apply to any ‘‘failure to meet an applicable standard’’ (including the work practice standard) and the source owners or operators must record the date, time, and duration of the ‘‘failure’’ rather than the ‘‘occurrence.’’ The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.2862(g) a requirement that source owners or operators keep records that include a statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard when the standard is not met, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include productloss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that source owners or operators keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 30829 EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the general duty to minimize emissions was met when an applicable standard was not met. The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability Table (Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ‘‘Yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘No.’’ When applicable, the provision requires source owners and operators to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement would no longer be appropriate because SSM plans are no longer proposed to be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.2862(g). The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability Table (Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ‘‘Yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘No.’’ When applicable, the provision requires source owners or operators to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement would no longer be appropriate because SSM plans would no longer be required. f. 40 CFR 63.2861 Reporting The General Provisions Applicability Table (Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) currently refers to the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions in 40 CFR 63.2861(c) and (d), which required periodic or immediate SSM reports according to whether the procedures of the SSM plan were followed, consistent with 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) and (ii). To replace the SSM reporting requirements, the EPA is first proposing to eliminate the periodic SSM reports in 40 CFR 63.2861(c), which were required to be submitted at the end of each calendar month of an initial startup period or malfunction period. The EPA is also proposing to remove the requirement in 40 CFR 63.2861(d) to submit an immediate report for startups, shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require owners and operators to report when actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. The EPA is proposing that source owners or operators that fail to meet an E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 30830 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES applicable standard at any time must report the information concerning such events in the deviation report already required under this rule. The report must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of HAP emitted over the emission requirements of 40 CFR 63.2840, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard was met. The EPA is also proposing that source owners or operators that fail to meet the work practice standard during the initial startup period must include a description of the deviation and include the records for the initial startup period in 40 CFR 63.2862(f), as described in section IV.D.1.e of this preamble. Finally, the EPA is proposing that source owners or operators that choose to operate under an initial startup period according to 40 CFR 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2) must also provide an initial startup report. The proposed initial startup report would require a compliance certification indicating whether the source was in compliance with the work practice standard of 40 CFR 63.2840(h). The EPA is proposing that the initial report must be submitted within 30 days of the end of the initial startup period. The proposed initial startup report would only be submitted on a one-time basis, rather than at the end of each calendar month of the initial startup period, but would demonstrate whether a facility operating in an initial startup period met the work practice standard for the duration of the period. 2. Electronic Reporting Through this action, the EPA is proposing that owners and operators of vegetable oil production facilities submit electronic copies of initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, and performance test reports through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A description of the electronic data submission process is provided in the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2019–0208. The proposed rule requires that performance test results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website 20 at the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and that other performance test results be submitted in portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. For initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance certifications, and deviation reports, the proposed rule requires that owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed templates for these reports are included in the docket for this rulemaking.21 The EPA specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall design of the templates. The initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, and performance test reports are required to be submitted according to the deadlines specified in 40 CFR 63.2861. Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The situation where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI, which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.2862(f). The situation where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event that will be or has 20 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert. 21 See Proposed Electronic Reporting Templates for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP, available at Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0208. PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by this rule is addressed in 40 CFR 63.2862(g). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility. The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA’s plan 22 to implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA’s Agencywide policy 23 developed in response to the White House’s Digital Government Strategy.24 For more information on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2019–0208. 3. Technical and Editorial Changes The EPA is proposing several minor technical editorial changes to the rule. 22 The EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August 2011. Available at: https:// www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA2011-0156-0154. 23 E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 2013. Available at: https:// www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/ documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-201309-30.pdf. 24 Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https:// obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ omb/egov/digital-government/digitalgovernment.html. E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES The EPA is proposing revisions to several definitions in 40 CFR 63.2872 to harmonize with the proposed removal of the SSM requirements and to clarify existing provisions. Specifically, the EPA is proposing harmonizing changes to the definitions of ‘‘Compliance ratio,’’ ‘‘Nonoperating period,’’ ‘‘Normal operating period,’’ and ‘‘Operating month’’ to clarify where the malfunction period is excluded, because sources would no longer be able to choose the malfunction period as a source operating status. The EPA is also proposing to revise ‘‘Normal operating period’’ to clarify that this definition also applies to ‘‘normal operation.’’ The EPA is proposing to revise the definition of ‘‘Hazardous air pollutant (HAP)’’ to remove the reference to the date of April 12, 2001. The current definition would continue to include HAP that may have been delisted following the April 2001 date, therefore, removal of the date would more appropriately reference the current list of HAP in section 112(b) of the CAA. Finally, the EPA is adding a definition for ‘‘Nonoperating month,’’ which was not previously defined. A nonoperating month would include any entire calendar or accounting month in which a source processes no agricultural product. The EPA is proposing minor revisions to 40 CFR 63.2840(a)(1) and (b)(1), 40 CFR 63.2853(a)(2), and 40 CFR 63.2855(a)(3) to remove text that is redundant with the definition of ‘‘operating month’’ in 40 CFR 63.2872. Finally, the EPA is proposing a minor correction to Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850 to correct a typographical error in row ‘‘(a)’’ for malfunction periods. E. What compliance dates are we proposing? Affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after June 27, 2019 would comply with all requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG, including the amendments being proposed, no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon startup. All affected facilities would continue to meet the current requirements of the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP until the applicable compliance date of the amended rule. Existing affected sources and affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before June 27, 2019 would comply with the amendments no later than 180 days after the effective date of the final rule. Affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after June 27, 2019 would comply with all VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG, including the amendments being proposed, no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later. The final action is not expected to be a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10). For existing sources, the EPA is proposing three changes that would affect ongoing compliance requirements for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the EPA is proposing to add a requirement that initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, and performance test results be electronically submitted. The EPA is proposing to change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods, and the EPA is proposing an option for facilities to follow new work practice standards for periods of initial startup. Our experience with similar industries shows that a minimum of 90 days, and, more typically, 180 days is generally necessary to successfully convert to electronic reporting. Facilities must install necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the process of submitting initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, and performance test results electronically through the EPA’s CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably employ electronic reporting and to convert logistics of reporting processes to different time-reporting parameters. Our experience with similar industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup, including the revised standards for initial startup periods, as defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments; and to update their operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance period PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 30831 practicable and, thus, is proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with the revised requirements within 180 days of the regulation’s effective date. We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we specifically request submission of information from sources in this source category regarding specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance periods. V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? The EPA estimates that there are 89 vegetable oil production facilities that are currently subject to the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP and would be affected by the proposed amendments. The bases of our estimate of affected facilities are provided in the memorandum, Residual Risk Modeling File Documentation for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category, which is available in the docket for this action. The EPA is aware of one potential new or reconstructed vegetable oil production facility that is subject to the standards. B. What are the air quality impacts? The EPA estimates that annual HAP emissions from the vegetable oil production facilities that are subject to the NESHAP are approximately 13,500 tpy.25 Because the EPA is not proposing revisions to the emission limits, we do not anticipate any quantifiable air quality impacts as a result of the proposed amendments. However, we anticipate that the proposed requirements, including the work practice standards for the optional initial startup period, are at least as stringent as the current rule requirements. C. What are the cost impacts? The 89 vegetable oil production facilities that would be subject to the proposed amendments would incur minimal net costs to meet revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements, some estimated to have costs and some estimated to have cost savings. Nationwide annual costs 25 The annual HAP emission estimates include emissions from 88 facilities. Annual emissions are not yet available for one newly constructed facility. E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 30832 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules associated with the proposed requirements are estimated to be $29,623 over the 3 years following promulgation of amendments (or $9,874 per year). The EPA believes that the vegetable oil production facilities which are known to be subject to the NESHAP can meet the proposed requirements without incurring additional capital or operational costs. Therefore, the only costs associated with the proposed amendments are related to recordkeeping and reporting labor costs. For further information on the requirements being proposed, see section IV of this preamble. For further information on the costs and cost savings associated with the requirements being proposed, see the memorandum, Cost for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category Risk and Technology Review—Proposed Amendments, and the document, Supporting Statement for NESHAP for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production, which are both available in the docket for this action. We solicit comment on these estimated cost impacts. jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES D. What are the economic impacts? Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with a proposed rule and the distribution of these costs among affected facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in response to a proposed rule. The total costs associated with reviewing the final rule are estimated to be $29,623 (or $9,874 per year) for the 3 years following the final rule. This is an estimated cost of $333 per facility. These costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms. E. What are the benefits? Although the EPA does not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as a result of the proposed amendments, we believe that the action, if finalized as proposed, would result in improvements to the rule. Specifically, the proposed amendments revise the standards such that they apply at all times. For facilities who choose to operate under an initial startup period, the EPA is proposing an alternative work practice standard that will ensure that facilities are minimizing emissions while the source operates under nonsteady state production, which will VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 protect public health and the environment. Additionally, the proposed amendments requiring electronic submittal of initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, and performance test results will increase the usefulness of the data, is in keeping with current trends of data availability, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment, and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community. See section IV.D.2 of this preamble for more information. VI. Request for Comments We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general comments on this proposed action, the EPA is also interested in additional data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. The EPA is specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more information on submitting data. VII. Submitting Data Corrections The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for download on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/ atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point for the facilities in the source category. If you believe that the data are not representative or are inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason for concern, and provide any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if available. When you submit data, we request that you provide documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the RTR website, complete the following steps: 1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the data fields appropriate for that information. 2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email address, commenter phone number, and revision comments). 3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions (e.g., PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 performance test reports, material balance calculations). 4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in Microsoft® Access format and all accompanying documentation to Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2019–0208 (through the method described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). 5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility (or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft® Excel files that are generated by the Microsoft® Access file. These files are provided on the RTR website at https:// www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to OMB for review. B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866. C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1947.08. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The EPA is proposing amendments that revise provisions pertaining to emissions during periods of SSM; add requirements for electronic reporting of certain notifications, reports, and performance test results; and make other minor clarifications and corrections. This information would be collected to assure compliance with the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP. Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of vegetable oil production processes. E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG). Estimated number of respondents: 90 (assumes one new respondent over the next 3 years). Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and annually. Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting burden for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be 33,000 hours. Of these, 241 hours (per year) is the incremental burden to comply with the proposed rule amendments. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be $3,380,000 (per year), including $0 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. Of the total, $9,874 (per year) is the incremental cost to comply with the proposed amendments to the rule, or approximately $111 per facility. 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 the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Submit your comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP or the proposed amendments, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICRrelated comments to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to OIRA_submission@ omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than July 29, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICRrelated comments in the final rule. D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small vegetable oil production facilities. The Agency has determined that up to 12 small entities, representing approximately 13 percent of the total number of entities subject to VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 30833 the proposal, may experience an impact of less than 0.1 percent of revenues. J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA conducted searches for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production sector RTR through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network Database managed by the American National Standards Institute. We also contacted voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and searched their databases. We conducted searches for EPA Method 311 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Method 311. The search identified two VCS that were potentially applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. After reviewing the available standards, the EPA determined that the two candidate VCS (ASTM Method D6438 (1999), Standard Test Method for Acetone, Methyl Acetate, and Parachlorobenzotrifluoride Content of Paints and Coatings by Solid Phase Microextraction-Gas Chromatography, and CARB Method 310, Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products, identified for measuring emissions of pollutants or their surrogates subject to emissions standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data, and other important technical and policy considerations. A thorough summary of the search conducted and results are included in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production, which is available in the docket for this action. This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action 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. G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in the vegetable oil production industry that would be affected by this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action’s health and risk assessments are contained in sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the risk report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, in the docket for this action. I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (58 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of this preamble and the technical report titled Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Vegetable Oil Production Facilities, in the docket for this action. As discussed in section IV.A of this preamble, we performed a demographic E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 30834 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups, of the population close to the facilities (within 50 km and within 5 km). In this analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer risks and noncancer hazards from the vegetable oil production processes across different social, demographic, and economic groups within the populations living near operations identified as having the highest risks. The EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples because the health risks based on actual emissions are low (below 1-in-1 million); we estimate that none of the population is exposed to risks greater than 1-in-1 million; and the rule maintains or 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, low-income, or indigenous populations. Further, the EPA believes that implementation of this rule will provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health of all demographic groups. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 11, 2019. Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator. PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Subpart GGGG—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production 2. Section 63.2834 is amended by revising Table 1 of § 63.2834 to read as follows: ■ § 63.2834 When do I have to comply with the standards in this subpart? For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows: * * * * * TABLE 1 OF § 63.2834—COMPLIANCE DATES FOR EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES And if . . . Then your compliance date is . . . (a) an existing source ...... ............................................................ April 12, 2004 .................................... (b) a new source .............. you startup your affected source before April 12, 2001. April 12, 2004 .................................... (c) a new source .............. you startup your affected source on or after April 12, 2001, but before [date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. you startup your affected source on or after [date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. your startup date ............................... (d) a new source .............. 3. Section 63.2840 is amended by: a. Revising the introductory text, paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text, (b) introductory text, and (b)(3) through (5); ■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(1); and ■ c. Adding paragraphs (g) and (h). The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ ■ § 63.2840 What emission requirements must I meet? jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES Except for certain requirements, as specified in §§ 63.2840, 63.2850, 63.2851, 63.2852, 63.2853, 63.2861, 63.2862, and 63.2870, then your compliance date is . . . If your affected source is categorized as . . . For each facility meeting the applicability criteria in § 63.2832, you must comply with either the requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, or the requirements in paragraph (e) of this section. You must also comply with the requirements in paragraph (g) of this section. You must comply with the work practice standard provided in paragraph (h) of this section, if you VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 your startup date ............................... choose to operate your source under an initial startup period subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2). (a)(1) The emission requirements limit the number of gallons of HAP lost per ton of listed oilseeds processed. For each operating month, as defined in § 63.2872, you must calculate a compliance ratio which compares your actual HAP loss to your allowable HAP loss for the previous 12 operating months as shown in Equation 1 of this section. Equation 1 of this section follows: * * * * * (b) When your source has processed listed oilseed for 12 operating months, calculate the compliance ratio by the end of each calendar month following an operating month, as defined in § 63.2872, using Equation 2 of this section. When calculating your PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 [date 181 days tion of final Register]. [date 181 days tion of final Register]. [date 181 days tion of final Register]. after date of publicarule in the Federal after date of publicarule in the Federal after date of publicarule in the Federal your startup date. compliance ratio, consider the conditions and exclusions in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section: * * * * * (3) If your source shuts down and processes no listed oilseed for an entire calendar or accounting month, then you must categorize the month as a nonoperating month, as defined in § 63.2872. Exclude any nonoperating months from the compliance ratio determination. (4) If your source is subject to an initial startup period as defined in § 63.2872, you may exclude from the compliance ratio determination any solvent and oilseed information recorded for the initial startup period, provided you meet the work practice standard in § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2). (5) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules Register], if your source is subject to a malfunction period as defined in § 63.2872, exclude from the compliance ratio determination any solvent and oilseed information recorded for the malfunction period. The provisions of this paragraph (e) do not apply on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. * * * * * (g) On or after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, at all times in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source. (h) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section if you choose to operate your source under an initial startup period subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2). (1) You must operate the mineral oil absorption system at all times during the initial startup period unless doing so is not possible due to safety considerations; (2) You must operate the solvent condensers at all times during the initial startup period unless doing so is not possible due to safety considerations; and (3) You must follow site-specific operating limits, established according to the requirements in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section, for temperature and pressure for the desolventizing and oil distillation units associated with solvent recovery at all times, unless doing so is not possible due to safety considerations. (i) Your site-specific operating limits may be based on equipment design, manufacturer’s recommendations, or other site-specific operating values established for normal operating periods. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 (ii) The operating limits may be in the form of a minimum, maximum, or operating range. ■ 4. Section 63.2850 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(5) introductory text; ■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(iv); ■ b. Revising paragraphs (b), (c)(1) and (2); ■ c. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (2), (e) introductory text, and (e)(2); and ■ d. Revising Table 1 of § 63.2850. The revisions and addition read as follows: § 63.2850 How do I comply with the hazardous air pollutant emission standards? (a) * * * (3) Develop a written startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) plan in accordance with the provisions in § 63.2852. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], an SSM plan is not required. * * * * * (5) Submit the reports in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section, as applicable: * * * * * (iv) Initial startup period reports in accordance with § 63.2861(e). * * * * * (b) Existing sources under normal operation. You must meet all of the requirements listed in paragraph (a) of this section and Table 1 of this section for sources under normal operation, and the schedules for demonstrating compliance for existing sources under normal operation in Table 2 of this section. (c) * * * (1) Normal operation. Upon initial startup of your new source, you must meet all of the requirements listed in § 63.2850(a) and Table 1 of this section for sources under normal operation, and the schedules for demonstrating compliance for new sources under normal operation in Table 2 of this section. (2) Initial startup period. For up to 6 calendar months after the startup date of your new source, you must meet all of the requirements listed in paragraph (a) of this section and Table 1 of this section for sources operating under an initial startup period, and the schedules for demonstrating compliance for new sources operating under an initial startup period in Table 2 of this section. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must also comply with the work practice standard in § 63.2840(h) for the duration of the PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 30835 initial startup period. At the end of the initial startup period (as defined in § 63.2872), your new source must then meet all of the requirements listed in Table 1 of this section for sources under normal operation. (d) * * * (1) Normal operation. Upon initial startup of your significantly modified existing or new source, you must meet all of the requirements listed in paragraph (a) of this section and Table 1 of this section for sources under normal operation, and the schedules for demonstrating compliance for an existing or new source that has been significantly modified in Table 2 of this section. (2) Initial startup period. For up to 3 calendar months after the startup date of your significantly modified existing or new source, you must meet all of the requirements listed in paragraph (a) of this section and Table 1 of this section for sources operating under an initial startup period, and the schedules for demonstrating compliance for a significantly modified existing or new source operating under an initial startup period in Table 2 of this section. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must also comply with the work practice standard in § 63.2840(h) for the duration of the initial startup period. At the end of the initial startup period (as defined in § 63.2872), your new or existing source must meet all of the requirements listed in Table 1 of this section for sources under normal operation. (e) Existing or new sources experiencing a malfunction. A malfunction is defined in § 63.2. In general, it means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to function in a normal or usual manner. If your existing or new source experiences an unscheduled shutdown as a result of a malfunction, continues to operate during a malfunction (including the period reasonably necessary to correct the malfunction), or starts up after a shutdown resulting from a malfunction, then you must meet the requirements associated with one of two compliance options. Routine or scheduled process startups and shutdowns resulting from, but not limited to, market demands, maintenance activities, and switching types of oilseed processed, are not startups or shutdowns resulting from a malfunction and, therefore, do not qualify for this provision. Within 15 days of the beginning date of the malfunction, you must choose to E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 30836 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules comply with one of the options listed in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section. The provisions of this paragraph (e) do not apply on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. * * * * * (2) Malfunction period. Throughout the malfunction period, you must meet all of the requirements listed in paragraph (a) of this section and Table 1 of this section for sources operating during a malfunction period. At the end of the malfunction period, your source must then meet all of the requirements listed in Table 1 of this section for sources under normal operation. Table 1 of this section follows: jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES TABLE 1 OF § 63.2850—REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH HAP EMISSION STANDARDS Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for malfunction periods subject to § 63.2850(e)(2)? a Are you required to . . . For periods of normal operation? a For initial startup periods subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2)? (a)(1) Operate and maintain your source in accordance with general duty provisions of § 63.6(e) before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]? (a)(2) Operate and maintain your source in accordance with general duty provisions of § 63.6(e) on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]? (b) Determine and record the extraction solvent loss in gallons from your source? Yes. Additionally, the HAP emission limits will apply. Yes, you are required to minimize emissions to the extent practicable throughout the initial startup period. Such measures should be described in the SSM plan. No, you must meet the requirements of § 62.2840(g). Yes, you are required to minimize emissions to the extent practicable throughout the initial startup period. Such measures should be described in the SSM plan. Yes, as described in § 63.2862(e). (c) Record the volume fraction of HAP present at greater than 1 percent by volume and gallons of extraction solvent in shipment received? (d) Determine and record the tons of each oilseed type processed by your source? (e) Determine the weighted average volume fraction of HAP in extraction solvent received as described in § 63.2854 by the end of the following calendar month? Yes .............................................. Yes, as described in § 63.2862(e) (before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]) and § 63.2862(f) (on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]). Yes ................................................ Yes. Yes, as described in § 63.2855 .. No ................................................. No. Yes .............................................. No, the HAP volume fraction in any solvent received during a malfunction period is included in the weighted average HAP determination for the next operating month. (f) Determine and record the actual solvent loss, weighted average volume fraction HAP, oilseed processed and compliance ratio for each 12 operating month period as described in § 63.2840 by the end of the following calendar month? (g) Submit a Notification of Compliance Status or Annual Compliance Certification as appropriate? Yes .............................................. No. Except for solvent received by a new or reconstructed source commencing operation under an initial startup period, the HAP volume fraction in any solvent received during an initial startup period is included in the weighted average HAP determination for the next operating month. No, these requirements are not applicable because your source is not required to determine the compliance ratio with data recorded for an initial startup period. No. However, you may be required to submit an annual compliance certification for previous operating months, if the deadline for the annual compliance certification happens to occur during the initial startup period. No. However, you may be required to submit an annual compliance certification for previous operating months, if the deadline for the annual compliance certification happens to occur during the malfunction period. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 No, you must meet the requirements of § 62.2840(g). Additionally, the HAP emission limits will apply. Yes, as described in § 63.2853 .. Yes, as described in §§ 63.2860(d) and 63.2861(a). Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM No, these requirements are not applicable because your source is not required to determine the compliance ratio with data recorded for a malfunction period. 27JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules 30837 TABLE 1 OF § 63.2850—REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH HAP EMISSION STANDARDS—Continued Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for malfunction periods subject to § 63.2850(e)(2)? a Are you required to . . . For periods of normal operation? a For initial startup periods subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2)? (h)(1) Submit a Deviation Notification Report by the end of the calendar month following the month in which you determined that the compliance ratio exceeds 1.00 as described in § 63.2861(b) before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]? (h)(2) Submit a Deviation Notification Report as described in § 63.2861(b) on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]? (i) Submit a Periodic SSM Report as described in § 63.2861(c)? Yes .............................................. No, these requirements are not applicable because your source is not required to determine the compliance ratio with data recorded for an initial startup period. No, these requirements are not applicable because your source is not required to determine the compliance ratio with data recorded for a malfunction period. Yes .............................................. Yes ................................................ No. No, a SSM activity is not categorized as normal operation. Yes. (j) Submit an Immediate SSM Report as described in § 63.2861(d)? No, a SSM activity is not categorized as normal operation. (k) Submit an Initial Startup Report as described in § 63.2861(e) on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]? No ............................................... Yes, before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes, only before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] and if your source does not follow the SSM plan. Yes ................................................ Yes, only if your source does not follow the SSM plan. No. a Beginning on [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must meet the requirements of this table for normal operating periods or for initial startup periods subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2) at all times. The column ‘‘For malfunction periods subject to § 63.2850(e)(2)?’’ is not applicable beginning on [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. 5. Section 63.2851 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text and adding paragraph (a)(8) to read as follows: ■ jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES § 63.2851 What is a plan for demonstrating compliance? (a) You must develop and implement a written plan for demonstrating compliance that provides the detailed procedures you will follow to monitor and record data necessary for demonstrating compliance with this subpart. Procedures followed for quantifying solvent loss from the source and amount of oilseed processed vary from source to source because of sitespecific factors such as equipment design characteristics and operating conditions. Typical procedures include one or more accurate measurement methods such as weigh scales, volumetric displacement, and material mass balances. Because the industry does not have a uniform set of procedures, you must develop and implement your own site-specific plan for demonstrating compliance before the compliance date for your source. You must also incorporate the plan for VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 demonstrating compliance by reference in the source’s title V permit and keep the plan on-site and readily available as long as the source is operational. If you make any changes to the plan for demonstrating compliance, then you must keep all previous versions of the plan and make them readily available for inspection for at least 5 years after each revision. The plan for demonstrating compliance must include the items in paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this section: * * * * * (8) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if you choose to operate your source under an initial start-up period subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2), the items in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section: (i) Your site-specific operating limits, and their basis, for temperature and pressure for the desolventizing and oil distillation units associated with solvent recovery. (ii) A detailed description of all methods of measurement your source will use to measure temperature and PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 pressure, including the measurement frequency. * * * * * ■ 6. Section 63.2852 is revised to read as follows: § 63.2852 What is a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan? Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must develop a written SSM plan in accordance with § 63.6(e)(3). You must complete the SSM plan before the compliance date for your source. You must also keep the SSM plan on-site and readily available as long as the source is operational. The SSM plan provides detailed procedures for operating and maintaining your source to minimize emissions during a qualifying SSM event for which the source chooses the § 63.2850(e)(2) malfunction period, or the § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2) initial startup period. The SSM plan must specify a program of corrective action for malfunctioning process and air pollution control equipment and reflect the best practices now in use by the industry to minimize emissions. Some E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 30838 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules or all of the procedures may come from plans you developed for other purposes such as a Standard Operating Procedure manual or an Occupational Safety and Health Administration Process Safety Management plan. To qualify as a SSM plan, other such plans must meet all the applicable requirements of these NESHAP. The provisions of this section do not apply on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. ■ 7. Section 63.2853 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph (a)(2) introductory text and the heading to Table 1 of § 63.2853; ■ b. Adding Table 2 of § 63.2853 in paragraph (a)(2); and ■ c. Revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(5)(i), (c)(1), (3), and (4). The revisions and addition read as follows: ■ § 63.2853 How do I determine the actual solvent loss? * * * * * (a) * * * (2) Source operating status. You must categorize the operating status of your source for each recorded time interval in accordance with criteria in Table 1 or Table 2 of this section, as follows: Table 1 of § 63.2853—Categorizing Your Source Operating Status Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] * * * * * TABLE 2 OF § 63.2853—CATEGORIZING YOUR SOURCE OPERATING STATUS ON AND AFTER jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES [Date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] If during a recorded time interval . . . then your source operating status is . . . (i) Your source processes any amount of listed oilseed and source is not operating under an initial startup operating period subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2). (ii) Your source processes no agricultural product and your source is not operating under an initial startup period subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2). (iii) You choose to operate your source under an initial startup period subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2) ............ (iv) Your source processes agricultural products not defined as listed oilseed ........................................................ A normal operating period. (3) Measuring the beginning and ending solvent inventory. You are required to measure and record the solvent inventory on the beginning and ending dates of each normal operating period that occurs during an operating month. You must consistently follow the procedures described in your plan for demonstrating compliance, as specified in § 63.2851, to determine the extraction solvent inventory, and maintain readily available records of the actual solvent loss inventory, as described in § 63.2862(c)(1). In general, you must measure and record the solvent inventory only when the source is actively processing any type of agricultural product. When the source is not active, some or all of the solvent working capacity is transferred to solvent storage tanks which can artificially inflate the solvent inventory. * * * * * (5) * * * (i) Solvent destroyed in a control device. You may use a control device to reduce solvent emissions to meet the emission standard. The use of a control device does not alter the emission limit for the source. If you use a control device that reduces solvent emissions through destruction of the solvent instead of recovery, then determine the gallons of solvent that enter the control device and are destroyed there during each normal operating period. All solvent destroyed in a control device during a normal operating period can be subtracted from the total solvent loss. Examples of destructive emission control devices include catalytic VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 incinerators, boilers, or flares. Identify and describe, in your plan for demonstrating compliance, each type of reasonable and sound measurement method that you use to quantify the gallons of solvent entering and exiting the control device and to determine the destruction efficiency of the control device. You may use design evaluations to document the gallons of solvent destroyed or removed by the control device instead of performance testing under § 63.7. The design evaluations must be based on the procedures and options described in § 63.985(b)(1)(i)(A) through (C) or § 63.11, as appropriate. All data, assumptions, and procedures used in such evaluations must be documented and available for inspection. If you use performance testing to determine solvent flow rate to the control device or destruction efficiency of the device, follow the procedures as outlined in § 63.997(e)(1) and (2) and the requirements in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(A) of this section. Instead of periodic performance testing to demonstrate continued good operation of the control device, you may develop a monitoring plan, following the procedures outlined in § 63.988(c) and using operational parametric measurement devices such as fan parameters, percent measurements of lower explosive limits, and combustion temperature. (A) On or after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must conduct all performance tests under such conditions as the Administrator PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 A nonoperating period. An initial startup period. An exempt period. specifies to you based on representative performance of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown unless specified by the Administrator. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. (B) [Reserved] (c) * * * (1) Nonoperating periods as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. * * * * * (3) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] malfunction periods as described in § 63.2850(e)(2). (4) Exempt operation periods as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. ■ 8. Section 63.2855 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(5)(i), and (c)(3) to read as follows: § 63.2855 How do I determine the quantity of oilseed processed? (a) * * * (3) Measuring the beginning and ending inventory for each oilseed. You are required to measure and record the oilseed inventory on the beginning and ending dates of each normal operating period that occurs during an operating E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules month. You must consistently follow the procedures described in your plan for demonstrating compliance, as specified in § 63.2851, to determine the oilseed inventory on an as received basis and maintain readily available records of the oilseed inventory as described by § 63.2862(c)(3). * * * * * (5) * * * (i) Oilseed that molds or otherwise become unsuitable for processing. * * * * * (c) * * * (3) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], malfunction periods as described in § 63.2850(e)(2). * * * * * ■ 9. Section 63.2861 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text; ■ b. Adding paragraphs (b)(5) through (8); ■ c. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text and (d) introductory text; and ■ d. Adding paragraphs (e) through (i). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 63.2861 when? What reports must I submit and jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES * * * * * (b) Deviation notification report. Submit a deviation report for each compliance determination you make in which the compliance ratio exceeds 1.00 as determined under § 63.2840(c) or if you deviate from the work practice standard for an initial startup period subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2). Submit the deviation report by the end of the month following the calendar month in which you determined the deviation. The deviation notification report must include the items in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this section if you exceed the compliance ratio, and must include the items in paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (5) through (8) of this section if you deviate from the work practice standard: * * * * * (5) Beginning on [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations and for each deviation the date, time, and duration of each deviation. (6) Beginning on [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). (7) Beginning on [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation, a VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of HAP emitted over the emission requirements of § 63.2840, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (8) A description of the deviation from the work practice standard during the initial startup period, including the records of § 63.2862(f) for the deviation. (c) Periodic startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if you choose to operate your source under an initial startup period subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2) or a malfunction period subject to § 63.2850(e)(2), you must submit a periodic SSM report by the end of the calendar month following each month in which the initial startup period or malfunction period occurred. The periodic SSM report must include the items in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section. The provisions of this paragraph (c) do not apply on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. * * * * * (d) Immediate SSM reports. Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if you handle a SSM during an initial startup period subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2) or a malfunction period subject to § 63.2850(e)(2) differently from procedures in the SSM plan and the relevant emission requirements in § 63.2840 are exceeded, then you must submit an immediate SSM report. Immediate SSM reports consist of a telephone call or facsimile transmission to the responsible agency within 2 working days after starting actions inconsistent with the SSM plan, followed by a letter within 7 working days after the end of the event. The letter must include the items in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section. The provisions of this paragraph (d) do not apply on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. * * * * * (e) Initial startup period reports. If you choose to operate your source under an initial startup period subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2) on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must submit an initial startup period report within 30 days after the initial startup period ends. The report must include the items in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) The name and address of the owner or operator. (2) The physical address of the vegetable oil production process. PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 30839 (3) A compliance certification indicating whether the source was in compliance with the work practice standard of § 63.2840(h). (f) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if you conduct performance tests to determine solvent flow rate to a control device or destruction efficiency of a control device according to the requirements of § 63.2853(a)(5)(i), within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test, you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Data collected using test methods supported by EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on EPA’s ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/ electronic-reporting-air-emissions/ electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the performance test to EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on EPA’s ERT website. (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by EPA’s ERT as listed on EPA’s ERT website at the time of the test. The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA’s ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to EPA via CEDRI. (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of the information submitted under paragraph (f) or (g) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The file must be generated through the use of EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA’s ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/ CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section. (g) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES 30840 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules Federal Register], you must submit the initial notification required in § 63.2860(b) and the annual compliance certification, deviation report, and initial startup report required in § 63.2861(a), (b), and (e) to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov). The owner or operator must upload to CEDRI an electronic copy of each applicable notification in portable document format (PDF). The applicable notification must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the reports are submitted. You must use the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI website (https:// www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/compliance-and-emissionsdata-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. If you claim some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI), submit a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The report must be generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/ CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of this section. (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an outage of either EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems. (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is due. (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned. (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting. (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying: (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the system was unavailable; (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to EPA system outage; (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. (i) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting. (3) You must provide to the Administrator: (i) A written description of the force majeure event; PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure event; (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the force majeure event occurs. ■ 10. Section 63.2862 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraphs (b) and (c) introductory text; ■ b. Revising paragraphs (c)(3)(ii), (d) introductory text, and (e) introductory text; and ■ c. Adding paragraphs (f) through (h). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 63.2862 What records must I keep? * * * * * (b) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], prepare a plan for demonstrating compliance (as described in § 63.2851) and a SSM plan (as described in § 63.2852). In these two plans, describe the procedures you will follow in obtaining and recording data, and determining compliance under normal operations or a SSM subject to the § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2) initial startup period or the § 63.2850(e)(2) malfunction period. Complete both plans before the compliance date for your source and keep them on-site and readily available as long as the source is operational. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the requirement to prepare a SSM plan no longer applies, and the plan for demonstrating compliance must only describe the procedures you develop according to the requirements of § 63.2851. (c) If your source processes any listed oilseed, record the items in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section: * * * * * (3) * * * (ii) The operating status of your source, as described in § 63.2853(a)(2). On the log for each type of listed oilseed that is not being processed during a normal operating period, you must record which type of listed oilseed is being processed in addition to the source operating status. * * * * * (d) After your source has processed listed oilseed for 12 operating months, E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 30841 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules record the items in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section by the end of the calendar month following each operating month: * * * * * (e) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each SSM event subject to an initial startup period as described in § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2), or a malfunction period as described in § 63.2850(e)(2), record the items in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section by the end of the calendar month following each month in which the initial startup period or malfunction period occurred. The provisions of this paragraph (e) do not apply on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. * * * * * (f) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each initial startup period subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2), record the items in paragraphs (f)(1) through (6) of this section by the end of the calendar month following each month in which the initial startup period occurred. (1) A description and dates of the initial startup period, and reason it qualifies as an initial startup. (2) An estimate of the solvent loss in gallons for the duration of the initial startup or malfunction period with supporting documentation. (3) Nominal design rate of the extractor and operating rate of the extractor for the duration of the initial startup period, or permitted production rate and actual production rate of your source for the duration of the initial startup period. (4) Measured values for temperature and pressure for the desolventizing and oil distillation units associated with solvent recovery. (5) Information to indicate the mineral oil absorption system was operating at all times during the initial startup period. (6) Information to indicate the solvent condensers were operating at all times during the initial startup period. (g) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], keep the records of deviations specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section for each compliance determination you make in which the compliance ratio exceeds 1.00 as determined under § 63.2840(c) or if you deviate from the work practice standard for an initial startup period subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2). (1) The number of deviations, and the date, time, and duration of each deviation. (2) A statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). (2) For each deviation, a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (3) Actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.2840(g), and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. (4) If you deviate from the work practice standard for an initial startup period, a description of the deviation from the work practice standard. (h) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are submitted electronically via EPA’s CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation. ■ 11. Section 63.2870 is amended by revising Table 1 to § 63.2870 to read as follows: § 63.2870 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? * * * * * jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES TABLE 1 TO § 63.2870—APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A, TO 40 CFR, PART 63, SUBPART GGGG General provisions citation Subject of citation Brief description of requirement § 63.1 .............................................. Applicability ...................... Yes. § 63.2 .............................................. Definitions ........................ § 63.3 .............................................. Units and abbreviations ... § 63.4 .............................................. Prohibited activities and circumvention. § 63.5 .............................................. Construction/reconstruction. Initial applicability determination; applicability after standard established; permit requirements; extensions; notifications. Definitions for part 63 standards. Units and abbreviations for part 63 standards. Prohibited activities; compliance date; circumvention; severability. Applicability; applications; approvals. Yes .......................... Except for paragraphs in § 63.5 as listed below in this table. § 63.5(c) .......................................... § 63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H) ............................ [Reserved]. Application for approval ... Type and quantity of HAP, operating parameters. No ............................ All sources emit HAP. Subpart GGGG does not require control from specific emission points. § 63.5(d)(1)(ii)(I) .............................. [Reserved]. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Applies to subpart Yes .......................... Explanation Except as specifically provided in this subpart. Yes. Yes. E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 30842 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES TABLE 1 TO § 63.2870—APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A, TO 40 CFR, PART 63, SUBPART GGGG— Continued General provisions citation Subject of citation Brief description of requirement Applies to subpart Explanation § 63.5(d)(1)(iii), (d)(2), (d)(3)(ii) ...... .......................................... Application for approval ... No ............................ § 63.6 .............................................. Applicability of General Provisions. Applicability ...................... Yes .......................... § 63.6(b)(1) through (3) .................. Compliance dates, new and reconstructed sources. .......................................... No ............................ The requirements of the application for approval for new, reconstructed and significantly modified sources are described in § 63.2860(b) and (c) of subpart GGGG. General provision requirements for identification of HAP emission points or estimates of actual emissions are not required. Descriptions of control and methods, and the estimated and actual control efficiency of such do not apply. Requirements for describing control equipment and the estimated and actual control efficiency of such equipment apply only to control equipment to which the subpart GGGG requirements for quantifying. Except for paragraphs in § 63.6 as listed below in this table. Section 63.2834 of subpart GGGG specifies the compliance dates for new and reconstructed sources. § 63.6(b)(6) ..................................... § 63.6(c)(3) and (4) ......................... § 63.6(d) .......................................... § 63.6(e)(1)(i) .................................. [Reserved]. [Reserved]. [Reserved]. Operation and Maintenance. .......................................... § 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ................................. Operation and Maintenance. Requirement to correct malfunctions as soon as practicable.. § 63.6(e)(3)(i) through (e)(3)(ii) and § 63.6(e)(3)(v) through (vii). Operation and maintenance requirements. .......................................... Yes, before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No, on or after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes, before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No, on or after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes, before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 See § 63.2840(g) for general duty requirement. See § 63.2840(g) for general duty requirement. Minimize emissions to the extent practicable. On or after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], see § 63.2840(g) for general duty requirement. Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules 30843 TABLE 1 TO § 63.2870—APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A, TO 40 CFR, PART 63, SUBPART GGGG— Continued General provisions citation Subject of citation Applies to subpart Explanation Minimize emissions to the extent practicable. On or after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], see § 63.2840(g) for general duty requirement. Report SSM and in accordance with § 63.2861(c) and (d). Except, before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], report each revision to your SSM plan in accordance with § 63.2861(c) rather than § 63.10(d)(5) as required under § 63.6(e)(3)(viii). § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) ................................ Operation and maintenance requirements. .......................................... No ............................ § 63.6(e)(3)(iv) ................................ Operation and maintenance requirements. .......................................... No ............................ § 63.6(e)(3)(viii) ............................... Operation and maintenance requirements. .......................................... Yes, before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No, on or after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. § 63.6(e)(3)(ix) ................................ Title V permit ................... .......................................... § 63.6(f)(1) ...................................... Compliance with nonComply with emission opacity emission standstandards at all times ards except during SSM. except during SSM. § 63.6(f)(2) and (3) ......................... Methods for Determining Compliance. Use of an Alternative Standard. Opacity/Visible emission (VE) standards. .......................................... Yes, before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No, on or after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes, before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No, on or after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. .......................................... Yes. .......................................... No ............................ § 63.6(i) ........................................... Compliance extension ..... Yes. § 63.6(j) ........................................... Presidential compliance exemption. § 63.7(e)(1) ..................................... Performance testing requirements. Procedures and criteria for responsible agency to grant compliance extension. President may exempt source category from requirement to comply with subpart. Representative conditions for performance test. § 63.6(g) .......................................... § 63.6(h) .......................................... jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES Brief description of requirement VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Subpart GGGG has no opacity or VE standards. Yes. Yes, before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No, on or after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 See § 63.2853(a)(5)(i)(A) for performance testing requirements. 30844 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1 TO § 63.2870—APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A, TO 40 CFR, PART 63, SUBPART GGGG— Continued jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES General provisions citation Subject of citation Brief description of requirement Applies to subpart Explanation Subpart GGGG requires performance testing only if the source applies additional control that destroys solvent. Section 63.2850(a)(6) requires sources to follow the performance testing guidelines of the General Provisions if a control is added. Subpart GGGG does not require monitoring other than as specified therein. Except for paragraphs in § 63.9 as listed below in this table. Section 63.2860(a) of subpart GGGG specifies the requirements of the initial notification for existing sources. Except the information requirements differ as described in § 63.2860(b) of subpart GGGG. Applies only if performance testing is performed. Subpart GGGG has no opacity or VE standards. Subpart GGGG has no CMS requirements. § 63.7(e)(2) through (4), (f), (g), and (h). Performance testing requirements. Schedule, conditions, notifications and procedures. Yes .......................... § 63.8 .............................................. Monitoring requirements .. .......................................... No ............................ § 63.9 .............................................. Notification requirements Applicability and state delegation. Yes .......................... § 63.9(b)(2) ..................................... Notification requirements Initial notification requirements for existing sources. No ............................ § 63.9(b)(3) through (5) .................. Notification requirements Notification requirement for certain new/reconstructed sources. Yes .......................... § 63.9(e) .......................................... Notification of performance test. Notify responsible agency 60 days ahead. Yes .......................... § 63.9(f) ........................................... Notification of VE/opacity observations. Notify responsible agency 30 days ahead. No ............................ § 63.9(g) .......................................... Additional notifications when using a continuous monitoring system (CMS). No ............................ § 63.9(h) .......................................... Notification of compliance status. Notification of performance evaluation; Notification using COMS data; notification that exceeded criterion for relative accuracy. Contents ........................... § 63.10 ............................................ Recordkeeping/reporting .. Schedule for reporting, record storage. Yes .......................... § 63.10(b)(2)(i) ................................ Recordkeeping ................. Record SSM event .......... Yes, before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No, on or after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 No ............................ E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 Section 63.2860(d) of subpart GGGG specifies requirements for the notification of compliance status. Except for paragraphs in § 63.10 as listed below in this table. Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], applicable to periods when sources must implement their SSM plan as specified in subpart GGGG. On or after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], meet the requirements of § 63.2862(f). Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules 30845 jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES TABLE 1 TO § 63.2870—APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A, TO 40 CFR, PART 63, SUBPART GGGG— Continued General provisions citation Subject of citation Brief description of requirement Applies to subpart Explanation § 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and (iii) .................. Recordkeeping ................. Malfunction of air pollution equipment. No ............................ Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], applies only if air pollution control equipment has been added to the process and is necessary for the source to meet the emission limit. On or after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], meet the requirements of § 63.2862(g). § 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) .................. Recordkeeping ................. SSM recordkeeping ......... § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) .............................. Recordkeeping ................. CMS recordkeeping ......... Yes, before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No, on or after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No ............................ § 63.10(b)(2)(viii) and (ix) ............... Recordkeeping ................. Conditions of performance test. Yes .......................... § 63.10(b)(2)(x) through (xii) ........... Recordkeeping ................. No ............................ § 63.10(c) ........................................ Recordkeeping ................. § 63.10(d)(2) ................................... Reporting ......................... CMS, performance testing, and opacity and VE observations recordkeeping. Additional CMS recordkeeping. Reporting performance test results. § 63.10(d)(3) ................................... Reporting ......................... Reporting opacity or VE observations. No ............................ § 63.10(d)(4) ................................... Reporting ......................... Progress reports .............. Yes .......................... § 63.10(d)(5) ................................... Reporting ......................... SSM reporting .................. No ............................ § 63.10(e) ........................................ Reporting ......................... Additional CMS reports .... No ............................ § 63.11 ............................................ Control device requirements. Requirements for flares ... Yes .......................... § 63.12 ............................................ § 63.14 ............................................ Incorporation by reference § 63.15 ............................................ Availability of information and confidentiality. State authority to enforce standards. Addresses where reports, notifications, and requests are sent. Test methods incorporated by reference. Public and confidential information. Yes. § 63.13 ............................................ State authority and delegations. State/regional addresses VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 No ............................ Yes .......................... Yes. Yes. Yes. E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2 Subpart GGGG has no CMS requirements. Applies only if performance tests are performed. Subpart GGGG does not have any CMS opacity or VE observation requirements. Subpart GGGG does not require CMS. Subpart GGGG does not require CMS. Applies only if performance testing is performed. Subpart GGGG has no opacity or VE standards. Applies only if a condition of compliance extension exists. Section 63.2861(c) and (d) specify SSM reporting requirements. Subpart GGGG does not require CMS. Applies only if your source uses a flare to control solvent emissions. Subpart GGGG does not require flares. 30846 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules 12. Section 63.2872 is amended by: a. Revising the definitions for ‘‘Compliance ratio’’, ‘‘Hazardous air pollutant (HAP)’’, ‘‘Initial startup period’’ and ‘‘Malfunction period’’; ■ b. Adding a definition for ‘‘Nonoperating month’’; and ■ c. Revising the definitions for ‘‘Nonoperating period’’, ‘‘Normal operating period’’ and ‘‘Operating month’’. The revisions and addition read as follows: ■ ■ § 63.2872 subpart? What definitions apply to this * * * * Compliance ratio means a ratio of the actual HAP loss in gallons from the previous 12 operating months to an allowable HAP loss in gallons, which is determined by using oilseed solvent loss factors in Table 1 of § 63.2840, the weighted average volume fraction of HAP in solvent received for the previous 12 operating months, and the tons of each type of listed oilseed processed in the previous 12 operating months. Months during which no listed oilseed is processed, or months during which the § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2) initial startup period or, before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the § 63.2850(e)(2) malfunction period applies, are excluded from this calculation. Equation 2 of § 63.2840 is used to calculate this value. If the value is less than or equal to 1.00, the source is in compliance. If the value is greater than 1.00, the source is deviating from compliance. * * * * * Hazardous air pollutant (HAP) means any substance or mixture of substances listed as a hazardous air pollutant under section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act. * * * * * jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES * VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:48 Jun 26, 2019 Jkt 247001 Initial startup period means a period of time from the initial startup date of a new, reconstructed, or significantly modified source, for which you choose to operate the source under an initial startup period subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2), until the date your source operates for 15 consecutive days at or above 90 percent of the nominal design rate of the extractor or at or above 90 percent of the permitted production rate for your source. The initial startup period following initial startup of a new or reconstructed source may not exceed 6 calendar months. The initial startup period following a significant modification may not exceed 3 calendar months. Solvent and oilseed inventory information recorded during the initial startup period is excluded from use in any compliance ratio determinations. * * * * * Malfunction period means a period of time between the beginning and end of a process malfunction and the time reasonably necessary for a source to correct the malfunction for which you choose to operate the source under a malfunction period subject to § 63.2850(e)(2). This period may include the duration of an unscheduled process shutdown, continued operation during a malfunction, or the subsequent process startup after a shutdown resulting from a malfunction. During a malfunction period, a source complies with the standards by minimizing HAP emissions to the extent practicable. Therefore, solvent and oilseed inventory information recorded during a malfunction period is excluded from use in any compliance ratio determinations. * * * * * Nonoperating month means any entire calendar or accounting month in PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 which a source processes no agricultural product. Nonoperating period means any period of time in which a source processes no agricultural product. This operating status does not apply during any period in which the source operates under an initial startup period as described in § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2), or, before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a malfunction period as described in § 63.2850(e)(2). Normal operating period or normal operation means any period of time in which a source processes a listed oilseed that is not categorized as an initial startup period as described in § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2), or, before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a malfunction period as described in § 63.2850(e)(2). At the beginning and ending dates of a normal operating period, solvent and oilseed inventory information is recorded and included in the compliance ratio determination. * * * * * Operating month means any calendar or accounting month in which a source processes any quantity of listed oilseed, excluding any entire calendar or accounting month in which the source operated under an initial startup period as described in § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2), or, before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a malfunction period as described in § 63.2850(e)(2). An operating month may include time intervals characterized by several types of operating status. However, an operating month must have at least one normal operating period. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2019–13110 Filed 6–26–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P E:\FR\FM\27JNP2.SGM 27JNP2

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 124 (Thursday, June 27, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30812-30846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13110]



[[Page 30811]]

Vol. 84

Thursday,

No. 124

June 27, 2019

Part II





 Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Solvent 
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Residual Risk and Technology 
Review; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2019 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 30812]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0208; FRL-9995-23-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU17


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Solvent 
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Residual Risk and Technology 
Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil 
Production. The source category addressed in this action is the Solvent 
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category. The EPA is 
proposing the results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR) 
that the EPA is required to conduct in accordance with the Clean Air 
Act (CAA). Based on the results of the EPA's risk review, the Agency is 
proposing that risk due to emissions of air toxics from this source 
category is acceptable and that the current NESHAP provides an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health. Under the technology review, 
the EPA is proposing there are no developments in practices, processes, 
or control technologies that necessitate revision of the standards. 
Therefore, the EPA is proposing no revisions to the numerical emission 
limits based on these analyses. However, the EPA is proposing to revise 
provisions pertaining to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction (SSM); add requirements for electronic reporting of 
certain notifications and reports and performance test results; and 
make other minor clarifications and corrections. Although the proposed 
amendments would not result in reductions in emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP), if finalized, they would result in improved 
compliance and implementation of the rule.

DATES: 
    Comments. Comments must be received on or before August 12, 2019. 
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information 
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before July 29, 2019.
    Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing 
on or before July 2, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional 
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a 
subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/solvent-extraction-vegetable-oil-production-national-emission. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 
information on requesting and registering for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0208, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0208 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0208.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0208, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except Federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID 
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information 
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact Mr. Bill Schrock, Natural Resources Group, Sector 
Policies and Programs Division (E143-03), Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5032; 
fax number: (919) 541-0516; and email address: [email protected]. 
For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, 
contact Matthew Woody, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-
02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-1535; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email 
address: [email protected]. For questions about monitoring and 
testing requirements, contact Brandon Little, Sector Policies and 
Programs Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-4059; fax 
number: (919) 541-4991; and email address: [email protected]. For 
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular 
entity, contact Maria Malave, Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building 
(Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20460; 
telephone number: (202) 564-7027; and email address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-0632 
or by email at [email protected] to request a public hearing, to 
register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a 
public hearing will be held.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0208. All documents in the docket are 
listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not 
publicly available, e.g., CBI (Confidential Business Information) or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the 
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically in 
Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 
WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA 
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0208. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal 
information provided, unless

[[Page 30813]]

the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or email. This type of information should be 
submitted by mail as discussed below.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your 
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through 
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically 
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an 
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and 
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be 
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the 
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or 
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on 
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of 
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically 
within the digital storage media the specific information that is 
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments 
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the 
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly 
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions 
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain 
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does 
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the 
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior 
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the 
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0208.
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and 
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease 
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA 
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
BACT Best Available Control Technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.1.0
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
MACT maximum achievable control technology
mg/kg-day milligrams per kilogram per day
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NOPA National Oil Producers Association
NSR New Source Review
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PDF portable document format
ppm parts per million
QA quality assurance
RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and 
Ecological Exposure model
UF uncertainty factor
[micro]g/m\3\ microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
VCS voluntary consensus standards

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?
    C. What data collection activities were conducted to support 
this action?
    D. What other relevant background information and data are 
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
    A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
    B. How do we perform the technology review?
    C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source 
category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
    A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
    B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, 
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
    C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our 
technology review?
    D. What other actions are we proposing?
    E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?

[[Page 30814]]

VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. 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?

    Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated 
industrial source categories that are the subject of this proposal. 
Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 
for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely 
to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly 
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal 
government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As 
defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 
112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, 
July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source 
Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992) as the 
``Vegetable Oil Production'' source category, and subsequently revised 
to the ``Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production'' source 
category (66 FR 8220, January 30, 2001) is defined as any facility 
engaged in producing crude vegetable oil and meal products by removing 
oil from listed oilseeds through direct contact with an organic 
solvent. The term ``oilseed'' refers to the following agricultural 
products: Corn germ, cottonseed, flax, peanut, safflower, soybean, 
sunflower, and rapeseed (source of canola oil).

    Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
                             Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Source category                   NESHAP          NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flour Milling..................  Solvent Extraction for           311211
                                  Vegetable Oil
                                  Production.
Wet Corn Milling...............  .......................          311221
Fats and Oils Refining and       .......................          311225
 Blending.
Other Animal Food Manufacturing  .......................          311119
Soybean and Other Oilseed        .......................          311224
 Processing.
Fats and Oils Refining and       .......................          311225
 Blending.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the 
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at 
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/solvent-extraction-vegetable-oil-production-national-emission. Following 
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal 
Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this 
same website. Information on the overall RTR program is available at 
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
    A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the 
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this 
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0208).

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of 
the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards 
for emissions of HAP from stationary sources. Generally, the first 
stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second 
stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether additional 
standards are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP 
emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the ``residual 
risk review.'' In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also 
requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 
years to determine if there are ``developments in practices, processes, 
or control technologies'' that may be appropriate to incorporate into 
the standards. This review is commonly referred to as the ``technology 
review.'' When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, 
it is commonly referred to as the ``risk and technology review.'' The 
discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections 
and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement 
these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears 
in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: 
Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, 
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) 
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP 
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major 
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different 
requirements for major source standards and area source standards. 
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major 
sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based 
NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP 
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly 
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a 
minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.'' 
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent

[[Page 30815]]

than the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly 
referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as 
provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards 
where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission 
standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA 
discretion to set standards based on generally available control 
technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT 
standards.
    The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and 
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA 
section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards, 
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether 
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this 
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources 
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further 
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for 
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's 
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National 
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions 
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene 
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery 
Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA 
notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use 
the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk 
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently 
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) 
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC 
v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to 
evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines 
whether risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health 
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a 
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) 
\1\ of approximately 1 in 10 thousand.'' 54 FR 38045, September 14, 
1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions 
standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without 
considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA 
considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health ``in consideration of all health 
information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than 
approximately 1 in 1 million, as well as other relevant factors, 
including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and 
other factors relevant to each particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must 
promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health. After conducting the ample margin of 
safety analysis, we consider whether a more stringent standard is 
necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers 
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is 
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum 
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review 
standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as 
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, 
and control technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years. In 
conducting this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the 
EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources 
Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 
Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 
2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the 
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).

B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?

    The current NESHAP for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil 
Production source category was promulgated on April 12, 2001 (66 FR 
19006), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG. As promulgated in 
2001 and further amended on April 5, 2002 (67 FR 16317), and September 
1, 2004 (69 FR 53338), the NESHAP regulates HAP emissions from solvent 
extraction for vegetable oil production processes at a facility that is 
a major source of HAP emissions. The affected source is each vegetable 
oil production process. A vegetable oil production process means the 
equipment comprising a continuous process for producing crude vegetable 
oil and meal products, including specialty soybean products, in which 
oil is removed from oilseeds listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2840 
through direct contact with an organic solvent. Process equipment 
typically includes the following components: Oilseed preparation 
operations (including conditioning, drying, dehulling, and cracking), 
solvent extractors, desolventizer-toasters, meal dryers, meal coolers, 
meal conveyor systems, oil distillation units, solvent evaporators and 
condensers, solvent recovery system (also referred to as a mineral oil 
absorption system), vessels storing solvent-laden materials, and crude 
meal packaging and storage vessels. A vegetable oil production process 
does not include vegetable oil refining operations (including 
operations such as bleaching, hydrogenation, and deodorizing) and 
operations that engage in additional chemical treatment of crude 
soybean meals produced in specialty desolventizer units (including 
operations such as soybean isolate production).
    The primary HAP emitted from vegetable oil production processes is 
n-hexane. The EPA does not consider n-hexane classifiable as a human 
carcinogen. However, short-term exposure to n-hexane can cause 
reactions such as irritations, dizziness, headaches, and nausea. Long-
term exposure can cause permanent nerve damage.
    The current NESHAP restricts facility-wide n-hexane emissions by 
setting emission limitations based on the number of gallons of HAP lost 
per ton of oilseeds processed, expressed as oilseed solvent loss 
ratios. Facilities demonstrate compliance by calculating a compliance 
ratio comparing the actual HAP loss to the allowable HAP loss for the 
previous 12 operating months. Allowable HAP loss is based on the 
oilseed solvent loss ratios provided in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2840 of 
the rule for new and existing sources. Compliance is demonstrated when 
the facility's calculated compliance ratio is less than 1 (i.e., the 
actual HAP loss is less than the calculated allowable HAP loss). 
Determination of compliance with the requirements of the Solvent 
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP requires the facility to 
keep records of the amount of n-hexane purchased, used, and recovered 
from the oilseed extraction process, the amount of oilseed processed, 
and the volume fraction of each HAP exceeding 1 percent in the 
extraction solvent used.

[[Page 30816]]

Facilities may also adjust their solvent loss to account for cases 
where solvent is routed through a closed vent system to a control 
device that is used to reduce emissions to meet the standard.
    Based on our search of the National Emission Inventory (NEI), the 
EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database 
(https://www.echo.epa.gov/), and consultation with industry 
representatives and EPA Regional offices, as of August 2018, there are 
89 vegetable oil production facilities in operation and subject to the 
Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP. A complete list 
of facilities that are currently subject to the Solvent Extraction for 
Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP is available in Appendix A of the 
memorandum, Residual Risk Modeling File Documentation for the Solvent 
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category, which is 
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0208.

C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this 
action?

    The EPA used several means to collect the information necessary to 
conduct the residual risk assessment and technology review for the 
Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category. To 
confirm whether facilities identified as potentially subject to the 
NESHAP were, in fact, subject to the standards, we reviewed compliance 
data in the EPA's ECHO database and requested air operating permits 
from various state and local agencies and EPA Regional offices. 
Additional Web searches (online news articles, company and trade 
organization websites, and review of Google Earth[supreg] satellite and 
street view imagery) were conducted to verify facility acquisition or 
closure. After developing our list of affected facilities, the status 
of these facilities was confirmed in consultation with the National Oil 
Producers Association (NOPA). The EPA conducted site visits at two 
facilities and conducted calls with NOPA representatives and member 
facilities regarding the facilities' production process and emission 
sources, available emissions data and emissions estimates, measures 
used to control emissions, and other aspects of facility operations. 
The facility-specific information from state and local agencies and 
companies with affected facilities provided support for this action's 
risk and technology reviews.

D. What other relevant background information and data are available?

    The EPA used multiple sources of information to support this 
proposed action. Before developing the list of affected facilities 
described in section II.C of this preamble, the EPA's ECHO database was 
used as a tool to identify potentially affected facilities with 
vegetable oil production operations using solvent extraction that are 
subject to the NESHAP. The ECHO database provides integrated compliance 
and enforcement information for approximately 800,000 regulated 
facilities nationwide.
    The 2011 and 2014 NEI databases provided facility-specific data and 
MACT category data that were used in developing the modeling file for 
the risk review. The NEI is a database that contains information about 
sources that emit criteria air pollutants, their precursors, and HAP. 
The database includes estimates of annual air pollutant emissions from 
point, nonpoint, and mobile sources in the 50 states, the District of 
Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The EPA collects this 
information and releases an updated version of the NEI database every 3 
years. The 2014 NEI was used because it was the most recent version 
available; 2011 NEI data was used to supplement the information in the 
2014 NEI (e.g., if a facility reported hexane loss as volatile organic 
compounds (VOC) in the 2014 NEI and as HAP in the 2011 NEI). The NEI 
includes information necessary for conducting risk modeling, including 
annual HAP emissions estimates from individual emission points at 
facilities and the related emissions release parameters. The EPA also 
consulted the 2014 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) database for 
assessment of facility-specific data for development of the modeling 
file. The TRI database is a regularly updated dataset encompassing over 
30 years of information. The TRI compiles reported annual air pollutant 
emissions from U.S. facilities from 30 industrial sectors and provides 
information about toxic chemical releases and pollution prevention 
activities reported by individual industrial and Federal facilities. 
The EPA collects the reported information, conducts data quality 
checks, and provides the information to the public through several 
internet-based tools and applications. The TRI provides individual HAP 
emissions estimates on a facility-level basis.
    In conducting the technology review, we examined state air 
operating permits and related documentation, including permit 
applications, supporting documents and inventories, and consent 
decrees. We also reviewed information in the Reasonably Available 
Control Technology (RACT)/Best Available Control Technology (BACT)/
Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) Clearinghouse (RBLC) to identify 
technologies in use and determine if there have been developments in 
practices, processes, or control technologies. The RBLC is a database 
that contains case-specific information of air pollution technologies 
that have been required to reduce the emissions of air pollutants from 
stationary sources. Under the EPA's New Source Review (NSR) program, if 
a facility is planning new construction or a modification that will 
increase the air emissions by a large amount, an NSR permit must be 
obtained. This central database promotes the sharing of information 
among permitting agencies and aids in case-by-case determinations for 
NSR permits.
    The EPA also reviewed other information sources to determine if 
there have been developments in practices, processes, or control 
technologies in the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production 
source category. We reviewed regulatory actions for emission sources 
similar to those included in the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil 
Production source category, including sources engaged in solvent use 
and recovery operations, and conducted a review of literature published 
by industry organizations, technical journals, and government 
organizations.

III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making

    In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the 
proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this 
proposal.

A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?

    As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene 
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not 
risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene 
NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to 
any single factor'' and, thus, ``[t]he Administrator believes that the 
acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of 
a broad set of health risk measures and information.'' 54 FR 38046, 
September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the

[[Page 30817]]

ample margin of safety determination, ``the Agency again considers all 
of the health risk and other health information considered in the first 
step. Beyond that information, additional factors relating to the 
appropriate level of control will also be considered, including cost 
and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, 
uncertainties, and any other relevant factors.'' Id.
    The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors 
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh 
those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk 
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP 
emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index 
(HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer 
health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP 
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.\2\ The assessment 
also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the 
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the 
potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA's 
risk analysis is consistent with the EPA's response to comments on our 
policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a 
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where 
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP 
exposure concentration to the noncancer dose-response value; the HI 
is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ 
system.

    [t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration 
of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be 
considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health 
effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, 
the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well 
as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be 
weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the 
Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an 
acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to 
assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional 
intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any 
particular measure of public health risk from the EPA's 
consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and 
thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of 
health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
appropriate to determining what will `protect the public health'.''

See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only 
one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risk. The 
Benzene NESHAP explained that ``an MIR of approximately one in 10 
thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of 
acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become 
presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be 
weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making 
an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a 
particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the 
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other 
health risk factors.'' Id. at 38045. Similarly, with regard to the 
ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP 
that: ``EPA believes the relative weight of the many factors that can 
be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be 
determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly 
because technological and economic factors (along with the health-
related factors) vary from source category to source category.'' Id. at 
38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated with the various 
risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our 
determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety.
    The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information 
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not 
attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions 
from other facilities that do not include the source category under 
review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent 
environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity 
of the sources in the category.
    The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an 
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure 
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize 
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing 
noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference 
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the 
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For 
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to 
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the 
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a 
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in 
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other 
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to 
result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May 
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR 
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if 
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and 
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions 
from other sources in the area.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review (RTR) 
Methods Panel are provided in their report, which is available at: 
https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates 
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those 
reflected in this proposal. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide 
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as 
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures 
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same 
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative 
pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the 
RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all 
carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens 
affecting the same target organ or target organ system.
    Although the EPA is interested in placing source category and 
facility-wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all 
sources combined in the vicinity of each source, the EPA is concerned 
about the uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from 
emission sources other than those that we have studied in depth during 
this RTR review would have significantly greater associated 
uncertainties than the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such 
aggregate or cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, 
making the assessments too unreliable.

B. How do we perform the technology review?

    Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation 
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that 
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we 
identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility, 
estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental 
impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with 
applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of 
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards. In

[[Page 30818]]

addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new 
sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we 
consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
     Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was 
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT 
standards;
     Any improvements in add-on control technology or other 
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of 
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions 
reduction;
     Any work practice or operational procedure that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards;
     Any process change or pollution prevention alternative 
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards; and
     Any significant changes in the cost (including cost 
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA 
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
    In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control 
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed 
and last updated the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our 
investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to 
consider. See sections II.C and II.D of this preamble for information 
on the specific data sources that were reviewed as part of the 
technology review.

C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category?

    In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of 
analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process. 
In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not 
relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be 
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), we would 
not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform 
an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we 
present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk 
assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section 
IV.A of this preamble).
    The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the 
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the 
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential 
to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to 
HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The 
assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk 
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of 
the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The seven sections 
that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and 
conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains 
the following document which provides more information on the risk 
assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the Solvent 
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in Support of 
the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to 
assess risk (as described in the seven primary steps below) are 
consistent with those described by the EPA in the document reviewed by 
a panel of the EPA's SAB in 2009; \4\ and described in the SAB review 
report issued in 2010. They are also consistent with the key 
recommendations contained in that report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment 
Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with 
Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement 
Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA-452/R-09-006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions 
release characteristics?
    Data for 93 vegetable oil production process lines at 88 facilities 
were used to create the RTR emissions dataset as described in sections 
II.C and II.D of this preamble. We identified one additional vegetable 
oil production process line at one newly constructed facility, which 
did not begin operations until January 2018. At the time of the 
development of the RTR emissions dataset, emissions data were not 
available for the new facility, therefore, only 88 of 89 known 
facilities are included. The emission sources included in the RTR 
emissions dataset are the collection of oilseed preparation operations 
(including conditioning, drying, dehulling, and cracking), solvent 
extractors, desolventizer-toasters, meal dryers, meal coolers, meal 
conveyor systems, oil distillation units, solvent evaporators and 
condensers, solvent recovery systems (also referred to as mineral oil 
absorption systems), vessels storing solvent-laden materials, and crude 
meal packaging and storage vessels, which are the primary HAP emission 
sources at vegetable oil production facilities and currently regulated 
by the NESHAP.
    As stated in section II.B of this preamble, the primary HAP emitted 
from these emissions sources is n-hexane, which accounts for 99.9 
percent of emissions from the source category. For nine facilities, the 
facility data reported to the NEI from these emissions sources was 
reported as VOC instead of n-hexane. For these facilities, the reported 
VOC emissions were assumed as 100- percent n-hexane. We made this 
assumption to provide a conservative estimate of risk, as the n-hexane 
content of most commercially available solvents is generally 64 percent 
(with remaining content composed of non-HAP materials). For a very 
small number of facilities (six), emissions of additional HAP, 
including acrolein, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and methanol, appeared 
to exhaust from emission points within the source category. Although 
these HAP are not used in or a result of solvent extraction and are 
likely from collocated ethanol processing facilities, oilseed 
conditioning, vegetable oil refining, or chemical treatment operations 
(such as bleaching, hydrogenation, or deodorizing processes) that 
exhaust through similar stacks, we could not definitively determine 
whether they should be excluded from the Solvent Extraction for 
Vegetable Oil Production source category. Because they could not be 
easily separated from the source category emissions for modeling 
purposes, we included these HAP in the modeling file to provide a 
conservative estimate of risk.
    Actual emission estimates for the vegetable oil production process 
equipment at the 88 affected facilities included in the dataset were 
based on 2011 and 2014 NEI data, 2014 TRI data, and inventories 
provided by individual facilities. Actual emission rates were provided 
separately for one facility (Cargill Corn Milling North America--Blair, 
Nebraska), due to discrepancies in the data reported to the NEI, and 
were based on facility testing and emission inventory data. Stack 
parameter data provided in the 2014 NEI, in addition to information 
identified from facility permits and associated documents, was used to 
assign actual emissions separately for these emission sources to 
individual emission release points (either as stack points or as 
fugitive emissions). For each emission release point, emissions release 
characteristic data such as emission release height, diameter, 
temperature, velocity, flow rate, and locational latitude/longitude 
coordinates were identified. The RTR emissions dataset also includes

[[Page 30819]]

emissions reported as complete process solvent loss, which represent 
the facility's combined n-hexane emissions, and were reported to the 
NEI or TRI as a single emissions release point (either fugitive or 
stack emissions). Because facilities in the source category typically 
vent their process units to a solvent recovery system for n-hexane 
recovery, the RTR database retains these emissions as emitted from 
either a single stack or fugitive point. Where site-specific 
information was incomplete, the EPA estimated stack parameters and 
calculated industry averages using the available data, or assigned 
default parameter values based on MACT source category 2014 NEI 
information where there was insufficient information.
    The EPA conducted a quality assurance (QA) check of source 
locations, emission release characteristics, and annual emissions 
estimates for all facilities. Additional details on the data and 
methods used to develop actual emissions estimates for the risk 
modeling, including the EPA's QA review, are provided in the 
memorandum, Residual Risk Modeling File Documentation for the Solvent 
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category, which is 
available in the docket for this action.
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
    The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include 
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time 
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the 
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT 
standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred 
to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions. We discussed the consideration 
of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven 
Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed 
and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 
71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we 
noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently 
reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could 
emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also 
explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where 
such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in 
accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September 
14, 1989.)
    The EPA determined annual MACT-allowable emissions by evaluating 
and estimating an average emissions multiplier for the industry. We 
reviewed permits for a subset of facilities in the source category to 
determine the permitted annual allowable emissions based on individual 
permit limits that demonstrated compliance with the MACT standard. The 
permitted annual allowable emissions for each facility were then 
compared to the actual annual emissions reported for each facility in 
the 2014 NEI to develop a ratio that reflects the current compliance 
margin for these facilities. The calculated ratio of permit allowable 
emissions to actual emissions is 3.139:1, so a multiplier of 3.139 was 
selected. We applied the multiplier to the actual emissions of the 
remaining facilities to estimate the allowable emissions for these 
facilities. We considered the estimated emissions multiplier a 
conservative estimate of MACT-allowable emissions as the reported 
actual emissions reflected only 20 to 30 percent of facilities' 
permitted emission rates, on average. Additionally, we note that the 
MACT annual-allowable emissions conservatively assume that all loss of 
n-hexane in the solvent extraction process is emitted to the 
atmosphere. However, we note that the solvent extraction process 
results in a portion of the solvent (less than 100 parts per million) 
remaining in the crushed seed meal. Therefore, the estimated allowable 
emissions likely reflect higher emissions than are emitted by the 
process.
3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation 
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk?
    Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations 
and health risk from the source category addressed in this proposal 
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\5\ The HEM-3 
performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting 
dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient 
air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to 
individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, 
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk 
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For more information about HEM-3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-human-exposure-model-hem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Dispersion Modeling
    The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of 
the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations 
from industrial facilities.\6\ To perform the dispersion modeling and 
to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data 
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used 
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of 
hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological 
stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto 
Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block \7\ 
internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human 
exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census 
block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill 
height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library 
of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health 
risk. These are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: 
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) 
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 
2005).
    \7\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which 
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
    In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the 
estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted 
by each source in the source category. The HAP air concentrations at 
each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility 
are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for 
all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is 
consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP 
(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian 
dispersion models, including AERMOD.
    For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk 
associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per 
week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum 
concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We 
calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime 
exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per 
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is 
an upper-bound estimate of an individual's incremental risk of 
contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 
microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk

[[Page 30820]]

assessments, we generally use UREs from the EPA's Integrated Risk 
Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS 
values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response 
values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In 
cases where new, scientifically credible dose-response values have been 
developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and have 
undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may 
use such dose-response values in place of, or in addition to, other 
values, if appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values 
used to estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
    To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with 
exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we 
sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \8\ emitted by the 
modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within 
50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the highest 
individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census 
blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the 
distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by 
summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose 
estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate 
annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer 
risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that 
block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing 
this result by a 70-year lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment 
classifies carcinogens as: ``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to 
be carcinogenic to humans,'' and ``suggestive evidence of 
carcinogenic potential.'' These classifications also coincide with 
the terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible 
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in the 
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document, 
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of 
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002), was published as a supplement 
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from 
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing 
the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative 
cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in 
their 2002 peer review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment 
(NATA) titled NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics 
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic 
exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific 
hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is 
emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ 
for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ 
system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by 
the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected 
from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-
response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ``an estimate (with 
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous 
inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive 
subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of 
deleterious effects during a lifetime'' (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC 
from the EPA's IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that 
using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer 
dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized 
sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA: 
(1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 
Minimum Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the 
CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as noted above, a scientifically 
credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner 
consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review 
process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-
response values used to estimate health risks are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other 
Than Cancer
    For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response 
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks 
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes 
conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and 
exposure location. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of our efforts 
to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP 
emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and 
the environment,\9\ the EPA is revising our treatment of meteorological 
data to use reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions in our 
acute risk screening assessments instead of worst-case air dispersion 
conditions. This revised treatment of meteorological data and the 
supporting rationale are described in more detail in Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in Support 
of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 
of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening 
Assessment. We will be applying this revision in RTR rulemakings 
proposed on or after June 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support Risk 
and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft Report, 
May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed 
individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission 
point,\10\ reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th 
percentile), and the point of highest off-site exposure. Specifically, 
we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable 
worst-case air dispersion conditions co-occur and that a person is 
present at the point of maximum exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop 
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the 
average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a 
category-specific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for 
variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for 
Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in 
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in 
Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk 
Screening Assessment. Both are available in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To characterize the potential health risks associated with 
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use 
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute 
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning 
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations), if available, to 
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the 
estimated acute exposure concentration by the acute dose-response 
value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available, 
the EPA calculates acute HQs.
    An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below 
which no adverse health effects are anticipated

[[Page 30821]]

for a specified exposure duration.'' \11\ Acute RELs are based on the 
most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-
reviewed medical and toxicological literature. They are designed to 
protect the most sensitive individuals in the population through the 
inclusion of margins of safety. Because margins of safety are 
incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL 
does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs 
represent threshold exposure limits for the general public and are 
applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 
hours.\12\ They are guideline levels for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-
term exposures to airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-
priority chemicals.'' Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is specifically defined as 
``the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or 
mg/m\3\ (milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is 
predicted that the general population, including susceptible 
individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or 
certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not 
disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of 
exposure.'' The document also notes that ``Airborne concentrations 
below AEGL-1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and 
progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste, 
and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.'' 
Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as 
parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above 
which it is predicted that the general population, including 
susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other 
serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to 
escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot 
Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in 
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The 
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne 
Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
    \12\ National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating 
Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous 
Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the 
National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for 
Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program 
continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National 
Academies to publish final AEGLs (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ERPGs are ``developed for emergency planning and are intended as 
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to 
chemicals.'' \13\ Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 is defined as ``the maximum 
airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all 
individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing 
other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving 
a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG-
2 is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is 
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one 
hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious 
health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability 
to take protective action.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American 
Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than 
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are 
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding 
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from 
our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we 
use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ 
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-
response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
    For this source category, the EPA estimated peak, short-term 
emissions using the available annual emissions data from the NEI. In 
previous RTR rulemakings, the EPA has assumed that a facility's peak, 
1-hour emission rate could exceed its annual average hourly emission 
rate by as much as a factor of 10, accounting for process variability, 
less-than-full-time operations, and other factors.\14\ Because we had 
no information indicating that peak emissions were lower, we chose to 
use a default multiplier of 10 to estimate acute emissions from the 
Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category. Acute 
emissions values were calculated by multiplying the actual emissions by 
10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for Solvent 
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in Support 
of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 
5 of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening 
Assessment. Both are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts 
are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are less than or 
equal to 1, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In 
cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we 
assess the site-specific data to ensure that the acute HQ is at an off-
site location. For this source category, the data refinements employed 
consisted of ensuring the locations where the maximum HQ occurred were 
off facility property and where the public could potentially be 
exposed. These refinements are discussed more fully in the Residual 
Risk Assessment for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production 
Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review 
Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this source 
category.
4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening 
assessment?
    The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the 
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via 
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine 
whether any sources in the source category emit any PB-HAP, as 
identified in the EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (See Volume 
1, Appendix D, at https://www2.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library.
    For the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source 
category, we did not identify emissions of any PB-HAP. Because we did 
not identify PB-HAP emissions, no further evaluation of multipathway 
risk was conducted for this source category.
    For further information on the multipathway assessment approach, 
see the Residual Risk Assessment for the Solvent Extraction for 
Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and 
Technology Review 2018 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket 
for this action.
5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
    The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential 
for an adverse environmental effect as required under section 
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse 
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse 
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, 
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of 
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of 
environmental quality over broad areas.''

[[Page 30822]]

    The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as 
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two 
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic 
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, polycyclic organic 
matter, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead 
compounds. The acid gases included in the screening assessment are 
hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
    HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental 
concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The 
acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented 
potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. For the Solvent 
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category, we did not 
identify emissions of any environmental HAP. Because we did not 
identify environmental HAP emissions, no further evaluation of 
environmental risk was conducted for this source category.
6. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments?
    To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine 
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all 
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common 
control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the 
source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP 
from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data.
    For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment 
using a dataset that the EPA compiled from the 2014 NEI. We used the 
NEI data for the facility and did not adjust any category or ``non-
category'' data. Therefore, there could be differences in the dataset 
from that used for the source category assessments described in this 
preamble. We analyzed risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are 
emitted ``facility-wide'' for the populations residing within 50 km of 
each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category 
analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, we 
made a reasonable attempt to identify the source category risks, and 
these risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the 
portion of facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source 
category addressed in this proposal. We also specifically examined the 
facility that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and 
determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the source 
category of interest. The Residual Risk Assessment for the Solvent 
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in Support of 
the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available through 
the docket for this action, provides the methodology and results of the 
facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the 
percentage of source category contribution to facility-wide risks.
7. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
    Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk 
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although 
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used 
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are 
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the 
uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, 
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows 
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute 
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our 
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of 
these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in 
Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is 
available in the docket for this action. If a multipathway site-
specific assessment was performed for this source category, a full 
discussion of the uncertainties associated with that assessment can be 
found in Appendix 11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health 
Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset
    Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved QA/
quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values will vary 
depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data are 
incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to complete 
the datasets are accurate, errors in emission estimates, and other 
factors. The emission estimates considered in this analysis generally 
are annual totals for certain years, and they do not reflect short-term 
fluctuations during the course of a year or variations from year to 
year. The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects 
screening assessment were based on an emission adjustment factor 
applied to the average annual hourly emission rates, which are intended 
to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
    We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration 
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended 
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate 
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to 
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the 
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not 
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other 
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts 
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select 
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels 
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the 
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient 
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in 
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP 
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset 
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to 
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in 
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
    Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant 
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate 
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the 
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the 
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our 
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each 
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor 
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor 
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the 
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. 
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high 
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants 
or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when 
possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we 
analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the 
block centroids to better represent

[[Page 30823]]

the population in the blocks. We also add additional receptor locations 
where the population of a block is not well represented by a single 
location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
    There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from 
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute 
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively, 
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a 
preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that 
is stated in the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment; 
namely, that ``the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human 
health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, 
including default options that are used in the absence of scientific 
data to the contrary, should be health protective'' (EPA's 2005 
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1-7). This is the 
approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs.
    Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been 
developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.\15\ 
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of 
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical 
confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low 
as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\16\ 
Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic 
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To 
derive dose-response values that are intended to be ``without 
appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor 
(UF) approach,\17\ which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps 
in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response 
values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of 
deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
    \16\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is 
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is 
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum 
likelihood estimates.
    \17\ See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference 
Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002 available at: 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-12/documents/rfd-final.pdf, and Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference 
Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 
1994 available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-11/documents/rfc_methodology.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in 
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to 
those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often 
applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations 
at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-
response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all 
acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care 
must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of 
human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values 
being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of 
acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be 
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
    Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks 
for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a 
hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of 
benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment 
endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-
effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but 
not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had 
benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels 
were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used 
all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk 
exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and 
widespread.
    For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol 
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value 
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly, 
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl 
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also 
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds 
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
    In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are 
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA 
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The 
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the 
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, 
such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of a 
person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR 
program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and 
reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile) 
co-occur. We then include the additional assumption that a person is 
located at this point at the same time. Together, these assumptions 
represent a reasonable worst-case exposure scenario. In most cases, it 
is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum 
exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable worst-case 
air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously.

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?

    As described above, for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil 
Production source category, we conducted an inhalation risk assessment 
for all HAP emitted. We present results of the risk assessment briefly 
below and in more detail in the Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in 
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is 
available in the docket for this action.
1. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    The results of the chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk 
assessment indicate that, based on estimates of current actual and 
allowable emissions, the MIR posed by the source category is less than 
1-in-1 million. The total estimated cancer incidence based on actual 
emission levels is 0.00005 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case 
every 20,000 years, and for allowable emissions is 0.0002 excess cancer 
cases per year, or 1 case every 5,000 years driven by emissions of 
acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. The population exposed to cancer risks 
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million considering actual and 
allowable emissions is 0 (see Table 2 of this preamble).
    The maximum modeled chronic noncancer TOSHI for the source category 
based on actual emissions is estimated to be 0.7 and, for allowable 
emissions, is estimated to be 2, with n-hexane emissions accounting for 
the TOSHI. Approximately 13 people are estimated to have exposures 
resulting in

[[Page 30824]]

a TOSHI greater than 1 if exposed to allowable emissions from this 
source category.

                               Table 2--Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Estimated
                                  Maximum individual     population at                                                                        Maximum
    Number of facilities \1\       cancer risk (in 1   increased risk of      Estimated annual cancer        Maximum chronic noncancer       screening
                                     million) \2\      cancer >= 1-in-1     incidence (cases per year)               TOSHI \3\                 acute
                                                            million                                                                        noncancer HQ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
88..............................                                              Based on Actual Emissions Level
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  <1................  0.................  0.00005.......................  0.7 (n-hexane)................     HQREL = 0.7
                                                                                                                                             (acrolein).
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Based on Allowable Emissions Level
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  < 1...............  0.................  0.0002........................  2 (n-hexane)..................            N/A.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category is the nervous system
  (neurocognitive and neurobehavioral effects).

2. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
    As presented in Table 2 of this preamble, the acute exposures to 
emissions from the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production 
source category result in a maximum HQ < 1 (0.7 based on the REL for 
acrolein). For more detail on the screening level acute risk assessment 
results, refer to the draft residual risk document: Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production 
Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review 
Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    For the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source 
category, we did not identify emissions of any PB-HAP. Because we did 
not identify PB-HAP emissions, no further evaluation of multipathway 
risk was conducted for this source category.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    For the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source 
category, we did not identify emissions of any environmental HAP. 
Because we did not identify environmental HAP emissions, no further 
evaluation of environmental risk was conducted for this source 
category.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    An assessment of facility-wide risks was performed as described 
above to characterize the source category risk in the context of 
facility-wide risks. Facility-wide risks were estimated using the NEI-
based data described in section II.D of this preamble. The maximum 
lifetime individual cancer risk posed by the 88 facilities, based on 
facility-wide emissions, is 5-in-1 million with cadmium, nickel, 
arsenic, chromium (VI), and formaldehyde emissions from facility-wide 
external combustion boilers driving the risk. Regarding the noncancer 
risk assessment, the maximum chronic noncancer HI posed by facility-
wide emissions is estimated to be 0.7 (for the nervous system) driven 
by source category n-hexane emissions.
6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the source category, we performed a 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual 
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of 
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Solvent Extraction for 
Vegetable Oil Production source category across different demographic 
groups within the populations living near facilities.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White, 
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial, 
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a 
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people 
living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated 
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Results of the demographic analysis indicate that, for 6 of the 11 
demographic groups, minority, African American, ages 0 to 17, ages 18 
to 64, over 25 without a high school diploma, and below the poverty 
level, the percentage of the population living within 5 km of 
facilities in the source category is greater than the corresponding 
national percentage for the same demographic groups. When examining the 
risk levels of those exposed to emissions from solvent extraction for 
vegetable oil production facilities, we find that no one is exposed to 
a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer 
TOSHI greater than 1.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis 
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Solvent Extraction 
for Vegetable Oil Production, available in the docket for this action.

B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample 
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?

1. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA sets standards 
under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting 
approach, with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable 
risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation 
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately 
1-in-10 thousand.'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989).
    In this proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and 
allowable emissions from the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil 
Production source category.
    In determining whether risks are acceptable, the EPA considered all 
available health information and risk estimation uncertainty, as 
described above. The results indicate that both the actual and 
allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are 
less than 1-in-1 million, well below the

[[Page 30825]]

presumptive limit of acceptability of 100-in-1 million.
    The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI due to inhalation exposures is 
less than 1 for actual emissions. For MACT-allowable emissions, the 
maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI due to inhalation exposures is 2, and 
an estimated 13 people exposed to allowable emissions would have a 
TOSHI greater than 1 due to n-hexane. Finally, the results of the acute 
screening analysis showed that acute risks were below a level of 
concern.
    Taking into account this information, the EPA proposes that the 
risks remaining after implementation of the existing MACT standards for 
the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category are 
acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost 
and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures 
(including those considered under the technology review) that could be 
applied in this source category to further reduce the risks (or 
potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in the risk 
assessment. Although the EPA is proposing that the risks from this 
source category are acceptable, the maximum HI for allowable emissions 
is 2 (caused by n-hexane emissions from fugitive process solvent loss). 
In addition, the HQ for acrolein is 0.7 as a result of acrolein 
emissions from flaker conditioner aspiration and cooker expeller 
aspiration. We considered whether the MACT standards applicable to 
these emission points in particular, as well as all the current MACT 
standards applicable to this source category, provide an ample margin 
of safety to protect public health.
    We identified in BACT analyses performed for two vegetable oil 
production processes the consideration of a cryogenic condenser after 
the main vent as an add-on control option for the reduction of n-
hexane. Our analysis found that the use of a cryogenic condenser on the 
main vent is not cost effective for reduction of HAP ($61,694/ton). 
Therefore, the EPA is proposing that the current standards provide an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health and revision of the 
standards is not required.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
    For the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source 
category, we did not identify emissions of any environmental HAP. 
Because we did not identify environmental HAP emissions, we expect no 
adverse environmental effects and are proposing that more stringent 
standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect.

C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology 
review?

    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology 
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and 
control technologies for control of n-hexane emissions from vegetable 
oil production facilities. In conducting the technology review, we 
reviewed information on practices, processes, and control technologies 
that were not considered during the development of the Solvent 
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP and looked for 
information on improvements in practices, processes, and control 
technologies that have occurred since the development of the Solvent 
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP. The review included a 
search of the RBLC database and reviews of air permits for vegetable 
oil production facilities, regulatory actions for emission sources 
similar to vegetable oil production process sources, site visits to 
operating vegetable oil production facilities, including the newest 
U.S. facility, and a review of relevant literature. After reviewing 
information from the aforementioned sources, we did not identify any 
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies to reduce 
n-hexane emissions from the vegetable oil production facilities. In the 
BACT analyses performed for two vegetable oil production processes, we 
identified the use of a cryogenic condenser after the main vent as a 
possible an add-on control option. Our analysis found that the use of a 
cryogenic condenser on the main vent is not cost effective for 
reduction of HAP ($61,694/ton). Additionally, our analysis found no 
additional significant or cost-effective changes in the practices, 
processes, and control technologies that may be used by vegetable oil 
production facilities that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for 
this source category. Therefore, the EPA is proposing that revisions to 
the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP are not 
necessary based on our review under CAA section 112(d)(6). Additional 
details of our technology review can be found in the memorandum, CAA 
Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Solvent Extraction for 
Vegetable Oil Production Source Category, which is available in the 
docket for this action. We solicit comment on our proposed decision.

D. What other actions are we proposing?

    In addition to the proposed actions described above, the EPA is 
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. The EPA is proposing 
revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure 
that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 
551 F. 3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that 
exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise 
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. 
We also are proposing various other changes to the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements and miscellaneous other technical and editorial 
changes to the regulatory text. Our analyses and proposed changes 
related to these issues are discussed below.
1. SSM Requirements
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 
2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA 
section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods 
of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 
302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be 
continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's 
requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously.
    The EPA is proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this 
rule, which appears at 40 CFR 63.2840(a) and Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870 
(General Provisions Applicability Table). Consistent with Sierra Club 
v. EPA, the EPA is proposing that standards in this rule apply at all 
times. The EPA is also proposing several revisions to the General 
Provisions Applicability Table as explained in more detail below. For 
example, the EPA is proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the 
General Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We 
also are proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further 
described below.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions the EPA is 
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in 
the absence of the SSM exemption. The EPA is specifically seeking 
comment on whether we have successfully done so.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into 
account

[[Page 30826]]

startup and shutdown periods. The proposed standards would apply at all 
times during shutdown and malfunction. For the reasons explained below, 
the EPA is proposing alternate standards for initial startup periods.
    The standards, as promulgated in 2001, provide an option for 
facilities to meet separate compliance requirements during periods of 
initial startup for new and significantly modified sources. Table 1 of 
40 CFR 63.2850 provides the requirements for compliance with the HAP 
emissions standards during periods of normal operation, initial startup 
periods, or malfunction periods. Both new/reconstructed sources and 
modified sources may comply by meeting the requirements for periods of 
normal operation in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. However, the standards 
also provide that for a period of up to 6 months after startup of a 
new/reconstructed source, the new source may meet separate compliance 
requirements for initial startup periods in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. 
For significantly modified sources, the standards provide an initial 
startup period of up to 3 months after startup.\19\ The initial startup 
period provisions were provided in the 2001 final rule with the 
recognition that the MACT limits, which are based on calculating a 
compliance ratio of a facility's actual HAP loss emissions to allowable 
HAP loss emissions over a 12-month period, apply to the entire 
vegetable oil production process, and that the MACT allowables were 
based on periods of normal operation. In lieu of add-on control 
equipment to specific pieces of equipment, control of n-hexane 
emissions at vegetable oil production facilities is accomplished 
through solvent recovery, and is based on inter-related process 
equipment that is often custom built to the specific configuration and 
needs of the plant. During an initial startup period, facility 
equipment is tested, added, or replaced as the facility gradually 
increases production, and emissions during this period may reflect 
variances that are not generally reflective of normal or steady-state 
operations. New and modified equipment is often brought online in a 
phased approach, and each phase can require adjustments in both new and 
existing equipment in the process in order to identify and correct 
problems, such as equipment that is not operating as designed and 
requires repair or replacement. The 2001 MACT floor solvent loss 
allowables are based on emissions data from normal operating periods 
achieved after facilities reached their steady-state production rates, 
and do not account for emissions during these initial startup periods. 
Therefore the HAP emissions during an initial startup period were 
excluded from the 12-month rolling compliance determinations. Sources 
were instead required to minimize emissions to the extent practicable 
throughout the initial startup period, following the facility's SSM 
plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Significant modifications to existing sources include 
replacement of or major changes to solvent recovery equipment such 
as extractors, desolventizer-toasters/dryer-coolers, flash 
desolventizers, and distillation equipment associated with the 
mineral oil system, and equipment affecting desolventizing 
efficiency and steady-state operation of the vegetable oil 
production process such as flaking mills, oilseed heating and 
conditioning equipment, and cracking mills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the EPA is proposing to eliminate the SSM provisions for 
the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category, we 
evaluated the available data to establish potential standards for 
periods of initial startup. The EPA reviewed operating permits from 
various state and local agencies and EPA Regional offices to identify 
new facilities operating in an initial startup period. Construction of 
new or modification of existing vegetable oil production facilities 
happens relatively infrequently (every 5-6 years), and there are a 
limited number of facilities that have modified or constructed 
following the promulgation of the final rule. The standards do not 
require--and state, local, and regional offices have not collected--
emissions data for these facilities during their initial startup 
periods. In our review of permits for newly constructed sources, the 
Agency identified one recently constructed facility (January 2018) with 
permitted MACT solvent loss allowables for an initial startup period. 
However, we determined that the allowables for the facility were not 
based on measured data, and further, because the facility is located in 
a non-attainment area and manufactures only one type of oilseed, the 
permitted solvent loss allowables would not be representative of 
initial startup periods for other facilities in the source category.
    Although we requested information on emissions and the operation of 
processes during initial startup periods in our consultations with 
industry, we did not receive any emissions data collected during an 
initial startup period, and are unsure these data exist. The Agency 
recognizes that the initial startup period, which is a one-time event 
for new sources and an infrequent event for signficantly modified 
sources, is not a typical startup period that may occur as part of 
routine or seasonal startups of a plant, and includes evaluation and 
replacement of new equipment as each phase is brought online and 
production is gradually increased. As such, the initial startup period 
reflects a non-steady state of operations and production. The current 
standards are production-based and limit emissions by the HAP lost per 
ton of oilseeds processed. Because the initial startup period reflects 
a non-steady state of production, emissions testing during this period 
would not likely be representative or acquire meaningful results. 
Therefore, emissions testing during initial startup would be both 
economically and technically infeasible. Consequently, the EPA is 
proposing a work practice standard rather than an emissions limit for 
periods of initial startup.
    Based on the information available in permits and obtained from 
NOPA, we have concluded that certain process solvent recovery 
equipment, including mineral oil scrubbers and condensers, could be 
operated normally during periods of initial startup. Further, 
facilities set site-specific operating ranges for temperature and 
vacuum for the desolventizing and oil distillation units to maximize 
solvent recovery. Therefore, the EPA is proposing that facilities 
operating in an initial startup period would operate the mineral oil 
absorption system and solvent condensers at all times during the 
initial startup period. The EPA is also proposing that facilities 
establish and follow site-specific operating ranges for temperature and 
vacuum for the desolventizing and oil distillation units associated 
with solvent recovery. Facilities would also continue to have the 
option to meet the requirements for normal operating periods in Table 1 
of 40 CFR 63.2850. We anticipate that the proposed work practices would 
minimize solvent losses and emissions of n-hexane from solvent 
extraction operations during the initial startup period by maximizing 
solvent recovery. The EPA is proposing that facilities following the 
initial startup period would include parameters for the work practice 
standards in their compliance plan in 40 CFR 63.2851, and are proposing 
associated recordkeeping and reporting for these periods, as discussed 
in sections IV.D.1.e and IV.D.1.f of this preamble. We anticipate that 
facilities would already conduct these work practice standards during 
their initial startup periods, and we do not expect any costs of 
control with this proposed work practice requirement. However, the EPA 
is soliciting information on other industry best practices and the

[[Page 30827]]

best level of emission control during initial startup periods for the 
Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category. The 
EPA is also soliciting information on the costs associated with these 
practices. In addition, the EPA is soliciting specific supporting data 
on HAP emissions during initial startup periods for this category, 
including whether the data are from a new or modified source, the 
duration of the initial startup period, the total solvent usage and 
total solvent loss during the initial startup period, and the estimate 
of HAP emitted during the initial startup period.
    The EPA is proposing to revise the definition of ``initial startup 
period.'' The proposed revisions are necessary to clarify the time at 
which an initial startup period ends and a normal operating period 
begins. The 2001 MACT rule provided that the initial startup period of 
a new or reconstructed source consisted of 6 calendar months, and the 
initial startup period following a significant modification consisted 
of 3 calendar months. The EPA is proposing to revise this definition 
and the requirements of 40 CFR 62.2850(c)(2) and (d)(2) to clarify that 
the end of the initial startup period is based on when the plant meets 
and maintains steady-state operations, defined as operating at or above 
90 percent of the extractor nominal design production rate or at or 
above 90 percent of the production rate in the plant's permit for 15 
consecutive days, not to exceed 6 calendar months after startup for new 
or reconstructed sources or 3 calendar months after startup for 
modified sources. The proposed definition would clarify that new or 
reconstructed sources that reach steady-state production prior to the 
end of the 6-month period or modified sources that reach steady-state 
production prior to the end of the 3-month period would be required to 
meet the requirements in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850 for sources under 
normal operation, and, thus, minimizing the initial startup period.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, 
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are, by 
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures 
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.2) 
(Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not 
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be 
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading 
has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions 
standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level 
``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for existing 
sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission 
limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of sources in 
the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the 
Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level ``achieved'' 
by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the 
Court has recognized, the phrase ``average emissions limitation 
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing 
about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.'' 
Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (DCCir. 
2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions 
standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider 
malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat 
a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in 
performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A 
malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or 
usual manner'' and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider 
such events in setting CAA section 112 standards.
    As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for 
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not 
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties 
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and 
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the 
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to 
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an 
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely 
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of 
circumstances.'') As such, the performance of units that are 
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra 
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically 
has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary 
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to 
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than 
to `invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.' ''). See also, 
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (DC Cir. 1978) (``In the 
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any 
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain 
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable 
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator 
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be 
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement 
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In 
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly 
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For 
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal 
goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for 
example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a 
steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source 
would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control 
device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction 
would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the 
emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual 
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example 
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that 
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels 
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is 
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The 
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and 
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for 
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For 
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a 
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in 
releases from pressure relief devises or emergency flaring events 
because the EPA had information to determine that such work practices 
reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers (80 
FR 75178, 75211-14, December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether 
circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of 
malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to 
identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard 
for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such 
information.

[[Page 30828]]

    The EPA anticipates that it is unlikely that a malfunction will 
result in a violation of the standard, and, therefore, the EPA is 
proposing to remove malfunction periods as a source operating status. 
The MACT standards are based on calculating a compliance ratio of a 
facility's actual HAP loss emissions to allowable HAP loss emissions 
over a 12-month rolling period, and apply to the entire vegetable oil 
production process. Therefore, the malfunction of a singular piece of 
equipment in a single month over this period is unlikely to result in 
an exceedance of the standard. However, it is possible that a 
malfunction could result in a violation of the standards; therefore, 
the EPA is considering the need for a work practice for periods of 
malfunction for these facilities. For example, the EPA has received 
information that it is possible that a malfunction of the extractor for 
sources in the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source 
category could potentially result in an emissions increase and 
potential violation of the emissions limit. During these periods, it is 
possible that an immediate line shutdown may not be feasible due to 
safety concerns. Such a major malfunction could lead to solvent losses 
that could result in multiple months of exceedances. In those cases, it 
may be appropriate to establish a standard for malfunctions. We would 
anticipate that a separate standard would be in the form of a work 
practice standard. Therefore, the EPA is soliciting information on the 
type of events that constitute a malfunction event, and industry best 
practices and the best level of emission control during such 
malfunction events for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil 
Production source category. The EPA is also soliciting information on 
the cost savings associated with these practices. In addition, the EPA 
is soliciting specific supporting data on HAP emissions during 
malfunction events for this category, including the cause of 
malfunction, the frequency of malfunction, duration of malfunction, and 
the estimate of HAP emitted during each malfunction.
    In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the 
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction 
event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among 
other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize 
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and 
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and 
rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the 
source's failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in 
fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable, and was not 
instead caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 
CFR 63.2 (Definition of malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement 
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is 
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that 
enforcement action and the Federal district court will determine what, 
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement 
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative 
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether 
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA, and, in particular, 
CAA section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid 
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing 
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur 
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those 
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
a. 40 CFR 63.2840 General Duty
    The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability 
Table (Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by 
changing the ``Yes'' in column 4 to a ``No.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) 
describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language 
in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the 
elimination of the SSM exemption. The EPA is proposing instead to add 
general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.2840(g) to reflect the 
general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to 
periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during 
periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no 
need to differentiate between normal operations, startup, and shutdown, 
and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the 
language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.2840(g) does not include 
that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    The EPA is also proposing to revise the General Provisions 
Applicability Table (Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ``Yes'' in column 4 to a ``No.'' Section 
63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary with the 
elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty 
requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.2840(g).
b. SSM Plan
    The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability 
Table (Table 1 of section 63.2870) entries for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(i) 
through (e)(3)(ii), 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(v) through (vii), and 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(3)(viii) and (ix) by changing the ``Yes'' in column 4 to a 
``No.'' The EPA is also proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.2852, which 
cross-references the requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3). Generally, 
these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. As 
noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, 
affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such 
events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure 
that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance 
and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
    The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability 
Table (Table 1 of section 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by 
revising the text in column 4 and removing the text in column 5. The 
current language in column 4 states that 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) does not 
apply and column 5 states that the ``Subpart GGGG does not have 
nonopacity requirements.'' This appears to be an error in the final 
rule, because 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG, includes non-opacity 
requirements. The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources 
from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, 
the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this 
provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 
standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is 
proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times. 
Therefore, the EPA is revising the text in columns 4 and 5 to clarify 
that the SSM exemption previously applied but will not apply going 
forward.
d. 40 CFR 63.2853 Performance Testing
    The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability 
Table (Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by 
changing the ``Yes'' in column 4 to a ``No.'' The General Provisions in 
40 CFR 63.7(e)(1)

[[Page 30829]]

describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead 
proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 
63.2853(a)(5)(i)(A). The performance testing requirements the EPA is 
proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing 
provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include 
the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and 
language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being 
considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance testing. The 
proposed performance testing provisions do not allow performance 
testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), 
performance tests conducted under 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG, should 
not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during 
malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating 
conditions. The EPA is proposing to add language in 40 CFR 
63.2853(a)(5)(i)(A) that requires the owner or operator to record the 
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions 
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support 
that such conditions represent normal operation. The General Provisions 
in 40 CFR 63.7(e) require that the owner or operator make available to 
the Administrator such records ``as may be necessary to determine the 
condition of the performance test'' available to the Administrator upon 
request, but does not specifically identify the information to be 
recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add to this 
provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the requirement 
to record the information.
e. 40 CFR 63.2862 Recordkeeping
    The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability 
Table (Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by 
changing the ``Yes'' in column 4 to a ``No.'' The requirements of 40 
CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) describe the recordkeeping requirements during 
startup and shutdown. The EPA is instead proposing to add recordkeeping 
requirements to 40 CFR 63.2862(f). When a source is subject to a 
different standard during initial startup, it will be important to know 
when such initial startup periods begin and end in order to determine 
compliance with the appropriate standard. Thus, the EPA is proposing to 
add language to 40 CFR 63.2862(f) requiring that owners or operators of 
sources subject to a work practice standard during initial startup 
times must report a description and dates of the initial startup 
period, the reason it qualifies as an initial startup period, an 
estimate of the solvent loss in gallons for the duration of the initial 
startup, and the nominal design rate and operating rate of the 
extractor or the permitted and actual production rates for the duration 
of the initial startup period. The EPA is also proposing that sources 
would be required to record information supporting the work practice 
standards, including: (1) Measured temperature and pressure for 
desolventizing and oil distillation units, (2) an indication that the 
mineral oil absorpotion system was operating at all times, and (3) an 
indication that the solvent condensers were operating at all times. The 
proposed records are required to demonstrate that the work practice 
standards have been met for periods of initial startup.
    The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability 
Table (Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by 
changing the ``Yes'' in column 4 to a ``No.'' The General Provisions in 
40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describe the recordkeeping requirements during a 
malfunction. The EPA is proposing to tailor recordkeeping requirements 
during a malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2862(g). Instead of requiring source 
owners or operators to create and retain a record of the ``occurrence 
and duration of each malfunction'' of process, air pollution control, 
and monitoring equipment, the rule proposes that this requirement apply 
to any ``failure to meet an applicable standard'' (including the work 
practice standard) and the source owners or operators must record the 
date, time, and duration of the ``failure'' rather than the 
``occurrence.''
    The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.2862(g) a requirement 
that source owners or operators keep records that include a statement 
of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if 
applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment and actions 
taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each 
regulated pollutant emitted over the standard when the standard is not 
met, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. 
Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass 
balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering 
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing to 
require that source owners or operators keep records of this 
information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the 
EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to 
provide data that may document how the general duty to minimize 
emissions was met when an applicable standard was not met.
    The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability 
Table (Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by 
changing the ``Yes'' in column 4 to a ``No.'' When applicable, the 
provision requires source owners and operators to record actions taken 
during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. 
The requirement would no longer be appropriate because SSM plans are no 
longer proposed to be required. The requirement previously applicable 
under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions 
and record corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 
63.2862(g).
    The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability 
Table (Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by 
changing the ``Yes'' in column 4 to a ``No.'' When applicable, the 
provision requires source owners or operators to record actions taken 
during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their 
SSM plan. The requirement would no longer be appropriate because SSM 
plans would no longer be required.
f. 40 CFR 63.2861 Reporting
    The General Provisions Applicability Table (Table 1 of 40 CFR 
63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) currently refers to the reporting 
requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions in 40 CFR 
63.2861(c) and (d), which required periodic or immediate SSM reports 
according to whether the procedures of the SSM plan were followed, 
consistent with 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) and (ii). To replace the SSM 
reporting requirements, the EPA is first proposing to eliminate the 
periodic SSM reports in 40 CFR 63.2861(c), which were required to be 
submitted at the end of each calendar month of an initial startup 
period or malfunction period. The EPA is also proposing to remove the 
requirement in 40 CFR 63.2861(d) to submit an immediate report for 
startups, shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an 
applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer 
require owners and operators to report when actions taken during a 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan, 
because plans would no longer be required.
    The EPA is proposing that source owners or operators that fail to 
meet an

[[Page 30830]]

applicable standard at any time must report the information concerning 
such events in the deviation report already required under this rule. 
The report must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the cause 
of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the 
affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of HAP 
emitted over the emission requirements of 40 CFR 63.2840, and a 
description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of 
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance 
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment 
based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this 
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine 
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure 
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document 
how the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an 
applicable standard was met. The EPA is also proposing that source 
owners or operators that fail to meet the work practice standard during 
the initial startup period must include a description of the deviation 
and include the records for the initial startup period in 40 CFR 
63.2862(f), as described in section IV.D.1.e of this preamble.
    Finally, the EPA is proposing that source owners or operators that 
choose to operate under an initial startup period according to 40 CFR 
63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2) must also provide an initial startup report. 
The proposed initial startup report would require a compliance 
certification indicating whether the source was in compliance with the 
work practice standard of 40 CFR 63.2840(h). The EPA is proposing that 
the initial report must be submitted within 30 days of the end of the 
initial startup period. The proposed initial startup report would only 
be submitted on a one-time basis, rather than at the end of each 
calendar month of the initial startup period, but would demonstrate 
whether a facility operating in an initial startup period met the work 
practice standard for the duration of the period.
2. Electronic Reporting
    Through this action, the EPA is proposing that owners and operators 
of vegetable oil production facilities submit electronic copies of 
initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance 
certifications, deviation reports, and performance test reports through 
the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and 
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A description of the 
electronic data submission process is provided in the memorandum, 
Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards 
(NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0208. The 
proposed rule requires that performance test results collected using 
test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool 
(ERT) as listed on the ERT website \20\ at the time of the test be 
submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and that 
other performance test results be submitted in portable document format 
(PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. For initial 
notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance 
certifications, and deviation reports, the proposed rule requires that 
owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit 
information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed templates for 
these reports are included in the docket for this rulemaking.\21\ The 
EPA specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall 
design of the templates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
    \21\ See Proposed Electronic Reporting Templates for the Solvent 
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP, available at Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual 
compliance certifications, deviation reports, and performance test 
reports are required to be submitted according to the deadlines 
specified in 40 CFR 63.2861. Additionally, the EPA has identified two 
broad circumstances in which electronic reporting extensions may be 
provided. In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of 
needing additional time to report is within the discretion of the 
Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA 
is providing these potential extensions to protect owners and operators 
from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully submit a 
report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. 
The situation where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the 
EPA's CDX or CEDRI, which precludes an owner or operator from accessing 
the system and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 
63.2862(f). The situation where an extension may be warranted due to a 
force majeure event, which is defined as an event that will be or has 
been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected 
facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected 
facility that prevents an owner or operator from complying with the 
requirement to submit a report electronically as required by this rule 
is addressed in 40 CFR 63.2862(g). Examples of such events are acts of 
nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety 
hazards beyond the control of the facility.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed 
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those 
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and 
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health 
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the 
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with 
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, 
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and 
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated 
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting 
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and 
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing 
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the 
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, 
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \22\ to 
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's 
Agency-wide policy \23\ developed in response to the White House's 
Digital Government Strategy.\24\ For more information on the benefits 
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic Reporting 
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, 
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, 
August 2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \23\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \24\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to 
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Technical and Editorial Changes
    The EPA is proposing several minor technical editorial changes to 
the rule.

[[Page 30831]]

The EPA is proposing revisions to several definitions in 40 CFR 63.2872 
to harmonize with the proposed removal of the SSM requirements and to 
clarify existing provisions. Specifically, the EPA is proposing 
harmonizing changes to the definitions of ``Compliance ratio,'' 
``Nonoperating period,'' ``Normal operating period,'' and ``Operating 
month'' to clarify where the malfunction period is excluded, because 
sources would no longer be able to choose the malfunction period as a 
source operating status. The EPA is also proposing to revise ``Normal 
operating period'' to clarify that this definition also applies to 
``normal operation.''
    The EPA is proposing to revise the definition of ``Hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP)'' to remove the reference to the date of April 12, 
2001. The current definition would continue to include HAP that may 
have been delisted following the April 2001 date, therefore, removal of 
the date would more appropriately reference the current list of HAP in 
section 112(b) of the CAA. Finally, the EPA is adding a definition for 
``Nonoperating month,'' which was not previously defined. A 
nonoperating month would include any entire calendar or accounting 
month in which a source processes no agricultural product.
    The EPA is proposing minor revisions to 40 CFR 63.2840(a)(1) and 
(b)(1), 40 CFR 63.2853(a)(2), and 40 CFR 63.2855(a)(3) to remove text 
that is redundant with the definition of ``operating month'' in 40 CFR 
63.2872. Finally, the EPA is proposing a minor correction to Table 1 of 
40 CFR 63.2850 to correct a typographical error in row ``(a)'' for 
malfunction periods.

E. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    Affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after 
June 27, 2019 would comply with all requirements of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart GGGG, including the amendments being proposed, no later than 
the effective date of the final rule or upon startup. All affected 
facilities would continue to meet the current requirements of the 
Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP until the 
applicable compliance date of the amended rule.
    Existing affected sources and affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction on or before June 27, 2019 would comply 
with the amendments no later than 180 days after the effective date of 
the final rule. Affected sources that commence construction or 
reconstruction after June 27, 2019 would comply with all requirements 
of 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG, including the amendments being 
proposed, no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon 
startup, whichever is later. The final action is not expected to be a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of 
the final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA 
section 112(d)(10). For existing sources, the EPA is proposing three 
changes that would affect ongoing compliance requirements for the 
Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP. As discussed 
elsewhere in this preamble, the EPA is proposing to add a requirement 
that initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance 
certifications, deviation reports, and performance test results be 
electronically submitted. The EPA is proposing to change the 
requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to 
meet the standard during SSM periods, and the EPA is proposing an 
option for facilities to follow new work practice standards for periods 
of initial startup. Our experience with similar industries shows that a 
minimum of 90 days, and, more typically, 180 days is generally 
necessary to successfully convert to electronic reporting. Facilities 
must install necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the 
process of submitting initial notifications, initial startup reports, 
annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, and performance 
test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new 
electronic submission capabilities, and reliably employ electronic 
reporting and to convert logistics of reporting processes to different 
time-reporting parameters. Our experience with similar industries 
further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a 
time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule 
requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet 
the standards during periods of startup, including the revised 
standards for initial startup periods, as defined in the rule and make 
any necessary adjustments; and to update their operation, maintenance, 
and monitoring plan to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA 
recognizes the confusion that multiple different compliance dates for 
individual requirements would create and the additional burden such an 
assortment of dates would impose. From our assessment of the timeframe 
needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, 
the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious 
compliance period practicable and, thus, is proposing that existing 
affected sources be in compliance with the revised requirements within 
180 days of the regulation's effective date.
    We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we 
specifically request submission of information from sources in this 
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be 
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the 
time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the 
revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in 
changes to the proposed compliance periods.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    The EPA estimates that there are 89 vegetable oil production 
facilities that are currently subject to the Solvent Extraction for 
Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP and would be affected by the proposed 
amendments. The bases of our estimate of affected facilities are 
provided in the memorandum, Residual Risk Modeling File Documentation 
for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source 
Category, which is available in the docket for this action. The EPA is 
aware of one potential new or reconstructed vegetable oil production 
facility that is subject to the standards.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The EPA estimates that annual HAP emissions from the vegetable oil 
production facilities that are subject to the NESHAP are approximately 
13,500 tpy.\25\ Because the EPA is not proposing revisions to the 
emission limits, we do not anticipate any quantifiable air quality 
impacts as a result of the proposed amendments. However, we anticipate 
that the proposed requirements, including the work practice standards 
for the optional initial startup period, are at least as stringent as 
the current rule requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The annual HAP emission estimates include emissions from 88 
facilities. Annual emissions are not yet available for one newly 
constructed facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The 89 vegetable oil production facilities that would be subject to 
the proposed amendments would incur minimal net costs to meet revised 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, some estimated to have costs 
and some estimated to have cost savings. Nationwide annual costs

[[Page 30832]]

associated with the proposed requirements are estimated to be $29,623 
over the 3 years following promulgation of amendments (or $9,874 per 
year). The EPA believes that the vegetable oil production facilities 
which are known to be subject to the NESHAP can meet the proposed 
requirements without incurring additional capital or operational costs. 
Therefore, the only costs associated with the proposed amendments are 
related to recordkeeping and reporting labor costs. For further 
information on the requirements being proposed, see section IV of this 
preamble. For further information on the costs and cost savings 
associated with the requirements being proposed, see the memorandum, 
Cost for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source 
Category Risk and Technology Review--Proposed Amendments, and the 
document, Supporting Statement for NESHAP for Solvent Extraction for 
Vegetable Oil Production, which are both available in the docket for 
this action. We solicit comment on these estimated cost impacts.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and 
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the 
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may 
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with a 
proposed rule and the distribution of these costs among affected 
facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in 
response to a proposed rule. The total costs associated with reviewing 
the final rule are estimated to be $29,623 (or $9,874 per year) for the 
3 years following the final rule. This is an estimated cost of $333 per 
facility. These costs are not expected to result in a significant 
market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the 
purchaser or absorbed by the firms.

E. What are the benefits?

    Although the EPA does not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as 
a result of the proposed amendments, we believe that the action, if 
finalized as proposed, would result in improvements to the rule. 
Specifically, the proposed amendments revise the standards such that 
they apply at all times. For facilities who choose to operate under an 
initial startup period, the EPA is proposing an alternative work 
practice standard that will ensure that facilities are minimizing 
emissions while the source operates under non-steady state production, 
which will protect public health and the environment. Additionally, the 
proposed amendments requiring electronic submittal of initial 
notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance 
certifications, deviation reports, and performance test results will 
increase the usefulness of the data, is in keeping with current trends 
of data availability, will further assist in the protection of public 
health and the environment, and will ultimately result in less burden 
on the regulated community. See section IV.D.2 of this preamble for 
more information.

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general 
comments on this proposed action, the EPA is also interested in 
additional data that may improve the risk assessments and other 
analyses. The EPA is specifically interested in receiving any 
improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles 
used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting 
documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the 
quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII 
of this preamble provides more information on submitting data.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category 
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for 
download on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files include detailed information for each HAP 
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are 
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason 
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if 
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide 
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your 
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the 
RTR website, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the 
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested 
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email 
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions 
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in 
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0208 (through the method described in the 
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple 
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file 
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility 
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be 
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are 
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are 
provided on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, 
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 
regulatory action because this action is not significant under 
Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information 
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 1947.08. You can find a copy of the ICR in the 
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
    The EPA is proposing amendments that revise provisions pertaining 
to emissions during periods of SSM; add requirements for electronic 
reporting of certain notifications, reports, and performance test 
results; and make other minor clarifications and corrections. This 
information would be collected to assure compliance with the Solvent 
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of vegetable oil 
production processes.

[[Page 30833]]

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart GGGG).
    Estimated number of respondents: 90 (assumes one new respondent 
over the next 3 years).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and annually.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting 
burden for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements 
in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to 
be 33,000 hours. Of these, 241 hours (per year) is the incremental 
burden to comply with the proposed rule amendments. Burden is defined 
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost 
for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the 
NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be 
$3,380,000 (per year), including $0 annualized capital or operation and 
maintenance costs. Of the total, $9,874 (per year) is the incremental 
cost to comply with the proposed amendments to the rule, or 
approximately $111 per facility.
    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 the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates to comply with all of the 
requirements in the NESHAP or the proposed amendments, and any 
suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the 
docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your 
ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs via email to [email protected], Attention: Desk 
Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision 
concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must 
receive comments no later than July 29, 2019. The EPA will respond to 
any ICR-related comments in the final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The 
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small 
vegetable oil production facilities. The Agency has determined that up 
to 12 small entities, representing approximately 13 percent of the 
total number of entities subject to the proposal, may experience an 
impact of less than 0.1 percent of revenues.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes 
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the 
private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action 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.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in 
the vegetable oil production industry that would be affected by this 
action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in 
sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the risk 
report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Solvent Extraction for 
Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk 
and Technology Review Proposed Rule, in the docket for this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 
conducted searches for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil 
Production sector RTR through the Enhanced National Standards Systems 
Network Database managed by the American National Standards Institute. 
We also contacted voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and 
accessed and searched their databases. We conducted searches for EPA 
Method 311 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. No applicable VCS were 
identified for EPA Method 311. The search identified two VCS that were 
potentially applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. 
After reviewing the available standards, the EPA determined that the 
two candidate VCS (ASTM Method D6438 (1999), Standard Test Method for 
Acetone, Methyl Acetate, and Parachlorobenzotrifluoride Content of 
Paints and Coatings by Solid Phase Microextraction-Gas Chromatography, 
and CARB Method 310, Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in 
Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating 
Products, identified for measuring emissions of pollutants or their 
surrogates subject to emissions standards in the rule would not be 
practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data, 
and other important technical and policy considerations.
    A thorough summary of the search conducted and results are included 
in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Solvent Extraction 
for Vegetable Oil Production, which is available in the docket for this 
action.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (58 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The 
documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of this 
preamble and the technical report titled Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Vegetable 
Oil Production Facilities, in the docket for this action.
    As discussed in section IV.A of this preamble, we performed a 
demographic

[[Page 30834]]

analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic 
groups, of the population close to the facilities (within 50 km and 
within 5 km). In this analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-
related cancer risks and noncancer hazards from the vegetable oil 
production processes across different social, demographic, and economic 
groups within the populations living near operations identified as 
having the highest risks.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or 
indigenous peoples because the health risks based on actual emissions 
are low (below 1-in-1 million); we estimate that none of the population 
is exposed to risks greater than 1-in-1 million; and the rule maintains 
or 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, low-income, or indigenous populations. Further, the EPA 
believes that implementation of this rule will provide an ample margin 
of safety to protect public health of all demographic groups.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: June 11, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to 
amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart GGGG--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production

0
2. Section 63.2834 is amended by revising Table 1 of Sec.  63.2834 to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.2834  When do I have to comply with the standards in this 
subpart?

* * * * *

                    Table 1 of Sec.   63.2834--Compliance Dates for Existing and New Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Except for certain
                                                                                             requirements, as
                                                                                         specified in Sec.  Sec.
                                                                                             63.2840, 63.2850,
      If your affected source is             And if . . .         Then your compliance      63.2851, 63.2852,
         categorized as . . .                                        date is . . .          63.2853, 63.2861,
                                                                                          63.2862, and 63.2870,
                                                                                           then your compliance
                                                                                              date is . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) an existing source...............  .......................  April 12, 2004.........  [date 181 days after
                                                                                          date of publication of
                                                                                          final rule in the
                                                                                          Federal Register].
(b) a new source.....................  you startup your         April 12, 2004.........  [date 181 days after
                                        affected source before                            date of publication of
                                        April 12, 2001.                                   final rule in the
                                                                                          Federal Register].
(c) a new source.....................  you startup your         your startup date......  [date 181 days after
                                        affected source on or                             date of publication of
                                        after April 12, 2001,                             final rule in the
                                        but before [date of                               Federal Register].
                                        publication of final
                                        rule in the Federal
                                        Register].
(d) a new source.....................  you startup your         your startup date......  your startup date.
                                        affected source on or
                                        after [date of
                                        publication of final
                                        rule in the Federal
                                        Register].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 63.2840 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text, paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text, 
(b) introductory text, and (b)(3) through (5);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(1); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (g) and (h).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.2840  What emission requirements must I meet?

    For each facility meeting the applicability criteria in Sec.  
63.2832, you must comply with either the requirements specified in 
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, or the requirements in 
paragraph (e) of this section. You must also comply with the 
requirements in paragraph (g) of this section. You must comply with the 
work practice standard provided in paragraph (h) of this section, if 
you choose to operate your source under an initial startup period 
subject to Sec.  63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2).
    (a)(1) The emission requirements limit the number of gallons of HAP 
lost per ton of listed oilseeds processed. For each operating month, as 
defined in Sec.  63.2872, you must calculate a compliance ratio which 
compares your actual HAP loss to your allowable HAP loss for the 
previous 12 operating months as shown in Equation 1 of this section. 
Equation 1 of this section follows:
* * * * *
    (b) When your source has processed listed oilseed for 12 operating 
months, calculate the compliance ratio by the end of each calendar 
month following an operating month, as defined in Sec.  63.2872, using 
Equation 2 of this section. When calculating your compliance ratio, 
consider the conditions and exclusions in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) 
of this section:
* * * * *
    (3) If your source shuts down and processes no listed oilseed for 
an entire calendar or accounting month, then you must categorize the 
month as a nonoperating month, as defined in Sec.  63.2872. Exclude any 
nonoperating months from the compliance ratio determination.
    (4) If your source is subject to an initial startup period as 
defined in Sec.  63.2872, you may exclude from the compliance ratio 
determination any solvent and oilseed information recorded for the 
initial startup period, provided you meet the work practice standard in 
Sec.  63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2).
    (5) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal

[[Page 30835]]

Register], if your source is subject to a malfunction period as defined 
in Sec.  63.2872, exclude from the compliance ratio determination any 
solvent and oilseed information recorded for the malfunction period. 
The provisions of this paragraph (e) do not apply on and after [date 
181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal 
Register].
* * * * *
    (g) On or after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], you must operate and maintain any 
affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment 
and monitoring equipment, at all times in a manner consistent with 
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require you 
to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by 
the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a 
source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance 
requirements will be based on information available to the 
Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring 
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of 
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
    (h) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], you must meet the requirements in 
paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section if you choose to operate 
your source under an initial startup period subject to Sec.  
63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2).
    (1) You must operate the mineral oil absorption system at all times 
during the initial startup period unless doing so is not possible due 
to safety considerations;
    (2) You must operate the solvent condensers at all times during the 
initial startup period unless doing so is not possible due to safety 
considerations; and
    (3) You must follow site-specific operating limits, established 
according to the requirements in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (ii) of this 
section, for temperature and pressure for the desolventizing and oil 
distillation units associated with solvent recovery at all times, 
unless doing so is not possible due to safety considerations.
    (i) Your site-specific operating limits may be based on equipment 
design, manufacturer's recommendations, or other site-specific 
operating values established for normal operating periods.
    (ii) The operating limits may be in the form of a minimum, maximum, 
or operating range.
0
4. Section 63.2850 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(5) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(iv);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b), (c)(1) and (2);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (2), (e) introductory text, and 
(e)(2); and
0
d. Revising Table 1 of Sec.  63.2850.
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  63.2850  How do I comply with the hazardous air pollutant 
emission standards?

    (a) * * *
    (3) Develop a written startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) plan 
in accordance with the provisions in Sec.  63.2852. On and after [date 
181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal 
Register], an SSM plan is not required.
* * * * *
    (5) Submit the reports in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iv) of this 
section, as applicable:
* * * * *
    (iv) Initial startup period reports in accordance with Sec.  
63.2861(e).
* * * * *
    (b) Existing sources under normal operation. You must meet all of 
the requirements listed in paragraph (a) of this section and Table 1 of 
this section for sources under normal operation, and the schedules for 
demonstrating compliance for existing sources under normal operation in 
Table 2 of this section.
    (c) * * *
    (1) Normal operation. Upon initial startup of your new source, you 
must meet all of the requirements listed in Sec.  63.2850(a) and Table 
1 of this section for sources under normal operation, and the schedules 
for demonstrating compliance for new sources under normal operation in 
Table 2 of this section.
    (2) Initial startup period. For up to 6 calendar months after the 
startup date of your new source, you must meet all of the requirements 
listed in paragraph (a) of this section and Table 1 of this section for 
sources operating under an initial startup period, and the schedules 
for demonstrating compliance for new sources operating under an initial 
startup period in Table 2 of this section. On and after [date 181 days 
after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you 
must also comply with the work practice standard in Sec.  63.2840(h) 
for the duration of the initial startup period. At the end of the 
initial startup period (as defined in Sec.  63.2872), your new source 
must then meet all of the requirements listed in Table 1 of this 
section for sources under normal operation.
    (d) * * *
    (1) Normal operation. Upon initial startup of your significantly 
modified existing or new source, you must meet all of the requirements 
listed in paragraph (a) of this section and Table 1 of this section for 
sources under normal operation, and the schedules for demonstrating 
compliance for an existing or new source that has been significantly 
modified in Table 2 of this section.
    (2) Initial startup period. For up to 3 calendar months after the 
startup date of your significantly modified existing or new source, you 
must meet all of the requirements listed in paragraph (a) of this 
section and Table 1 of this section for sources operating under an 
initial startup period, and the schedules for demonstrating compliance 
for a significantly modified existing or new source operating under an 
initial startup period in Table 2 of this section. On and after [date 
181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal 
Register], you must also comply with the work practice standard in 
Sec.  63.2840(h) for the duration of the initial startup period. At the 
end of the initial startup period (as defined in Sec.  63.2872), your 
new or existing source must meet all of the requirements listed in 
Table 1 of this section for sources under normal operation.
    (e) Existing or new sources experiencing a malfunction. A 
malfunction is defined in Sec.  63.2. In general, it means any sudden, 
infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution 
control equipment, process equipment, or a process to function in a 
normal or usual manner. If your existing or new source experiences an 
unscheduled shutdown as a result of a malfunction, continues to operate 
during a malfunction (including the period reasonably necessary to 
correct the malfunction), or starts up after a shutdown resulting from 
a malfunction, then you must meet the requirements associated with one 
of two compliance options. Routine or scheduled process startups and 
shutdowns resulting from, but not limited to, market demands, 
maintenance activities, and switching types of oilseed processed, are 
not startups or shutdowns resulting from a malfunction and, therefore, 
do not qualify for this provision. Within 15 days of the beginning date 
of the malfunction, you must choose to

[[Page 30836]]

comply with one of the options listed in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of 
this section. The provisions of this paragraph (e) do not apply on and 
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register].
* * * * *
    (2) Malfunction period. Throughout the malfunction period, you must 
meet all of the requirements listed in paragraph (a) of this section 
and Table 1 of this section for sources operating during a malfunction 
period. At the end of the malfunction period, your source must then 
meet all of the requirements listed in Table 1 of this section for 
sources under normal operation. Table 1 of this section follows:

               Table 1 of Sec.   63.2850--Requirements for Compliance With HAP Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Before [date 181 days
                                                                                              after date of
                                                                  For initial startup      publication of final
                                        For periods of normal   periods subject to Sec.    rule in the  Federal
      Are you required to . . .             operation? \a\           63.2850(c)(2) or         Register], for
                                                                        (d)(2)?            malfunction periods
                                                                                             subject to Sec.
                                                                                            63.2850(e)(2)? \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a)(1) Operate and maintain your       Yes. Additionally, the   Yes, you are required    Yes, you are required
 source in accordance with general      HAP emission limits      to minimize emissions    to minimize emissions
 duty provisions of Sec.   63.6(e)      will apply.              to the extent            to the extent
 before [date 181 days after date of                             practicable throughout   practicable throughout
 publication of final rule in the                                the initial startup      the initial startup
 Federal Register]?                                              period. Such measures    period. Such measures
                                                                 should be described in   should be described in
                                                                 the SSM plan.            the SSM plan.
(a)(2) Operate and maintain your       No, you must meet the    No, you must meet the
 source in accordance with general      requirements of Sec.     requirements of Sec.
 duty provisions of Sec.   63.6(e) on   62.2840(g).              62.2840(g).
 and after [date 181 days after date    Additionally, the HAP
 of publication of final rule in the    emission limits will
 Federal Register]?                     apply.
(b) Determine and record the           Yes, as described in     Yes, as described in     Yes, as described in
 extraction solvent loss in gallons     Sec.   63.2853.          Sec.   63.2862(e)        Sec.   63.2862(e).
 from your source?                                               (before [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]) and Sec.
                                                                 63.2862(f) (on and
                                                                 after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]).
(c) Record the volume fraction of HAP  Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
 present at greater than 1 percent by
 volume and gallons of extraction
 solvent in shipment received?
(d) Determine and record the tons of   Yes, as described in     No.....................  No.
 each oilseed type processed by your    Sec.   63.2855.
 source?
(e) Determine the weighted average     Yes....................  No. Except for solvent   No, the HAP volume
 volume fraction of HAP in extraction                            received by a new or     fraction in any
 solvent received as described in                                reconstructed source     solvent received
 Sec.   63.2854 by the end of the                                commencing operation     during a malfunction
 following calendar month?                                       under an initial         period is included in
                                                                 startup period, the      the weighted average
                                                                 HAP volume fraction in   HAP determination for
                                                                 any solvent received     the next operating
                                                                 during an initial        month.
                                                                 startup period is
                                                                 included in the
                                                                 weighted average HAP
                                                                 determination for the
                                                                 next operating month.
(f) Determine and record the actual    Yes....................  No, these requirements   No, these requirements
 solvent loss, weighted average                                  are not applicable       are not applicable
 volume fraction HAP, oilseed                                    because your source is   because your source is
 processed and compliance ratio for                              not required to          not required to
 each 12 operating month period as                               determine the            determine the
 described in Sec.   63.2840 by the                              compliance ratio with    compliance ratio with
 end of the following calendar month?                            data recorded for an     data recorded for a
                                                                 initial startup period.  malfunction period.
(g) Submit a Notification of           Yes, as described in     No. However, you may be  No. However, you may be
 Compliance Status or Annual            Sec.  Sec.               required to submit an    required to submit an
 Compliance Certification as            63.2860(d) and           annual compliance        annual compliance
 appropriate?                           63.2861(a).              certification for        certification for
                                                                 previous operating       previous operating
                                                                 months, if the           months, if the
                                                                 deadline for the         deadline for the
                                                                 annual compliance        annual compliance
                                                                 certification happens    certification happens
                                                                 to occur during the      to occur during the
                                                                 initial startup period.  malfunction period.

[[Page 30837]]

 
(h)(1) Submit a Deviation              Yes....................  No, these requirements   No, these requirements
 Notification Report by the end of                               are not applicable       are not applicable
 the calendar month following the                                because your source is   because your source is
 month in which you determined that                              not required to          not required to
 the compliance ratio exceeds 1.00 as                            determine the            determine the
 described in Sec.   63.2861(b)                                  compliance ratio with    compliance ratio with
 before [date 181 days after date of                             data recorded for an     data recorded for a
 publication of final rule in the                                initial startup period.  malfunction period.
 Federal Register]?
(h)(2) Submit a Deviation              Yes....................  Yes....................  No.
 Notification Report as described in
 Sec.   63.2861(b) on and after [date
 181 days after date of publication
 of final rule in the Federal
 Register]?
(i) Submit a Periodic SSM Report as    No, a SSM activity is    Yes, before [date 181    Yes.
 described in Sec.   63.2861(c)?        not categorized as       days after date of
                                        normal operation.        publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
(j) Submit an Immediate SSM Report as  No, a SSM activity is    Yes, only before [date   Yes, only if your
 described in Sec.   63.2861(d)?        not categorized as       181 days after date of   source does not follow
                                        normal operation.        publication of final     the SSM plan.
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register] and if your
                                                                 source does not follow
                                                                 the SSM plan.
(k) Submit an Initial Startup Report   No.....................  Yes....................  No.
 as described in Sec.   63.2861(e) on
 and after [date 181 days after date
 of publication of final rule in the
 Federal Register]?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Beginning on [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must meet
  the requirements of this table for normal operating periods or for initial startup periods subject to Sec.
  63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2) at all times. The column ``For malfunction periods subject to Sec.   63.2850(e)(2)?''
  is not applicable beginning on [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal
  Register].

0
5. Section 63.2851 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 
text and adding paragraph (a)(8) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2851  What is a plan for demonstrating compliance?

    (a) You must develop and implement a written plan for demonstrating 
compliance that provides the detailed procedures you will follow to 
monitor and record data necessary for demonstrating compliance with 
this subpart. Procedures followed for quantifying solvent loss from the 
source and amount of oilseed processed vary from source to source 
because of site-specific factors such as equipment design 
characteristics and operating conditions. Typical procedures include 
one or more accurate measurement methods such as weigh scales, 
volumetric displacement, and material mass balances. Because the 
industry does not have a uniform set of procedures, you must develop 
and implement your own site-specific plan for demonstrating compliance 
before the compliance date for your source. You must also incorporate 
the plan for demonstrating compliance by reference in the source's 
title V permit and keep the plan on-site and readily available as long 
as the source is operational. If you make any changes to the plan for 
demonstrating compliance, then you must keep all previous versions of 
the plan and make them readily available for inspection for at least 5 
years after each revision. The plan for demonstrating compliance must 
include the items in paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this section:
* * * * *
    (8) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], if you choose to operate your source 
under an initial start-up period subject to Sec.  63.2850(c)(2) or 
(d)(2), the items in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section:
    (i) Your site-specific operating limits, and their basis, for 
temperature and pressure for the desolventizing and oil distillation 
units associated with solvent recovery.
    (ii) A detailed description of all methods of measurement your 
source will use to measure temperature and pressure, including the 
measurement frequency.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.2852 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2852  What is a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan?

    Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in 
the Federal Register], you must develop a written SSM plan in 
accordance with Sec.  63.6(e)(3). You must complete the SSM plan before 
the compliance date for your source. You must also keep the SSM plan 
on-site and readily available as long as the source is operational. The 
SSM plan provides detailed procedures for operating and maintaining 
your source to minimize emissions during a qualifying SSM event for 
which the source chooses the Sec.  63.2850(e)(2) malfunction period, or 
the Sec.  63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2) initial startup period. The SSM plan 
must specify a program of corrective action for malfunctioning process 
and air pollution control equipment and reflect the best practices now 
in use by the industry to minimize emissions. Some

[[Page 30838]]

or all of the procedures may come from plans you developed for other 
purposes such as a Standard Operating Procedure manual or an 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration Process Safety Management 
plan. To qualify as a SSM plan, other such plans must meet all the 
applicable requirements of these NESHAP. The provisions of this section 
do not apply on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register].
0
7. Section 63.2853 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2) introductory text and the heading to Table 
1 of Sec.  63.2853;
0
b. Adding Table 2 of Sec.  63.2853 in paragraph (a)(2); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(5)(i), (c)(1), (3), and (4).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  63.2853  How do I determine the actual solvent loss?

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) Source operating status. You must categorize the operating 
status of your source for each recorded time interval in accordance 
with criteria in Table 1 or Table 2 of this section, as follows:
    Table 1 of Sec.  63.2853--Categorizing Your Source Operating Status 
Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register]
* * * * *

 Table 2 of Sec.   63.2853--Categorizing Your Source Operating Status On
                                and After
  [Date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal
                                Register]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   If during a recorded time      then your source operating status is .
         interval . . .                            . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Your source processes any    A normal operating period.
 amount of listed oilseed and
 source is not operating under
 an initial startup operating
 period subject to Sec.
 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2).
(ii) Your source processes no    A nonoperating period.
 agricultural product and your
 source is not operating under
 an initial startup period
 subject to Sec.
 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2).
(iii) You choose to operate      An initial startup period.
 your source under an initial
 startup period subject to Sec.
   63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2).
(iv) Your source processes       An exempt period.
 agricultural products not
 defined as listed oilseed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Measuring the beginning and ending solvent inventory. You are 
required to measure and record the solvent inventory on the beginning 
and ending dates of each normal operating period that occurs during an 
operating month. You must consistently follow the procedures described 
in your plan for demonstrating compliance, as specified in Sec.  
63.2851, to determine the extraction solvent inventory, and maintain 
readily available records of the actual solvent loss inventory, as 
described in Sec.  63.2862(c)(1). In general, you must measure and 
record the solvent inventory only when the source is actively 
processing any type of agricultural product. When the source is not 
active, some or all of the solvent working capacity is transferred to 
solvent storage tanks which can artificially inflate the solvent 
inventory.
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) Solvent destroyed in a control device. You may use a control 
device to reduce solvent emissions to meet the emission standard. The 
use of a control device does not alter the emission limit for the 
source. If you use a control device that reduces solvent emissions 
through destruction of the solvent instead of recovery, then determine 
the gallons of solvent that enter the control device and are destroyed 
there during each normal operating period. All solvent destroyed in a 
control device during a normal operating period can be subtracted from 
the total solvent loss. Examples of destructive emission control 
devices include catalytic incinerators, boilers, or flares. Identify 
and describe, in your plan for demonstrating compliance, each type of 
reasonable and sound measurement method that you use to quantify the 
gallons of solvent entering and exiting the control device and to 
determine the destruction efficiency of the control device. You may use 
design evaluations to document the gallons of solvent destroyed or 
removed by the control device instead of performance testing under 
Sec.  63.7. The design evaluations must be based on the procedures and 
options described in Sec.  63.985(b)(1)(i)(A) through (C) or Sec.  
63.11, as appropriate. All data, assumptions, and procedures used in 
such evaluations must be documented and available for inspection. If 
you use performance testing to determine solvent flow rate to the 
control device or destruction efficiency of the device, follow the 
procedures as outlined in Sec.  63.997(e)(1) and (2) and the 
requirements in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(A) of this section. Instead of 
periodic performance testing to demonstrate continued good operation of 
the control device, you may develop a monitoring plan, following the 
procedures outlined in Sec.  63.988(c) and using operational parametric 
measurement devices such as fan parameters, percent measurements of 
lower explosive limits, and combustion temperature.
    (A) On or after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], you must conduct all performance tests 
under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to you based on 
representative performance of the affected source for the period being 
tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and 
shutdown unless specified by the Administrator. You may not conduct 
performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the 
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions 
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support 
that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you 
shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be 
necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
    (B) [Reserved]
    (c) * * *
    (1) Nonoperating periods as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (3) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register] malfunction periods as described in Sec.  
63.2850(e)(2).
    (4) Exempt operation periods as described in paragraph (a)(2) of 
this section.
0
8. Section 63.2855 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(5)(i), 
and (c)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2855  How do I determine the quantity of oilseed processed?

    (a) * * *
    (3) Measuring the beginning and ending inventory for each oilseed. 
You are required to measure and record the oilseed inventory on the 
beginning and ending dates of each normal operating period that occurs 
during an operating

[[Page 30839]]

month. You must consistently follow the procedures described in your 
plan for demonstrating compliance, as specified in Sec.  63.2851, to 
determine the oilseed inventory on an as received basis and maintain 
readily available records of the oilseed inventory as described by 
Sec.  63.2862(c)(3).
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) Oilseed that molds or otherwise become unsuitable for 
processing.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], malfunction periods as described in Sec.  
63.2850(e)(2).
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.2861 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraphs (b)(5) through (8);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text and (d) introductory text; 
and
0
d. Adding paragraphs (e) through (i).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.2861  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (b) Deviation notification report. Submit a deviation report for 
each compliance determination you make in which the compliance ratio 
exceeds 1.00 as determined under Sec.  63.2840(c) or if you deviate 
from the work practice standard for an initial startup period subject 
to Sec.  63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2). Submit the deviation report by the 
end of the month following the calendar month in which you determined 
the deviation. The deviation notification report must include the items 
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this section if you exceed the 
compliance ratio, and must include the items in paragraphs (b)(1), (2), 
and (5) through (8) of this section if you deviate from the work 
practice standard:
* * * * *
    (5) Beginning on [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations and for each 
deviation the date, time, and duration of each deviation.
    (6) Beginning on [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each 
deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable).
    (7) Beginning on [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation, a list of the 
affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of HAP 
emitted over the emission requirements of Sec.  63.2840, and a 
description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (8) A description of the deviation from the work practice standard 
during the initial startup period, including the records of Sec.  
63.2862(f) for the deviation.
    (c) Periodic startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. Before 
[date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal 
Register], if you choose to operate your source under an initial 
startup period subject to Sec.  63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2) or a 
malfunction period subject to Sec.  63.2850(e)(2), you must submit a 
periodic SSM report by the end of the calendar month following each 
month in which the initial startup period or malfunction period 
occurred. The periodic SSM report must include the items in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (3) of this section. The provisions of this paragraph 
(c) do not apply on and after [date 181 days after date of publication 
of final rule in the Federal Register].
* * * * *
    (d) Immediate SSM reports. Before [date 181 days after date of 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if you handle a SSM 
during an initial startup period subject to Sec.  63.2850(c)(2) or 
(d)(2) or a malfunction period subject to Sec.  63.2850(e)(2) 
differently from procedures in the SSM plan and the relevant emission 
requirements in Sec.  63.2840 are exceeded, then you must submit an 
immediate SSM report. Immediate SSM reports consist of a telephone call 
or facsimile transmission to the responsible agency within 2 working 
days after starting actions inconsistent with the SSM plan, followed by 
a letter within 7 working days after the end of the event. The letter 
must include the items in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this 
section. The provisions of this paragraph (d) do not apply on and after 
[date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal 
Register].
* * * * *
    (e) Initial startup period reports. If you choose to operate your 
source under an initial startup period subject to Sec.  63.2850(c)(2) 
or (d)(2) on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], you must submit an initial startup 
period report within 30 days after the initial startup period ends. The 
report must include the items in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) The name and address of the owner or operator.
    (2) The physical address of the vegetable oil production process.
    (3) A compliance certification indicating whether the source was in 
compliance with the work practice standard of Sec.  63.2840(h).
    (f) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], if you conduct performance tests to 
determine solvent flow rate to a control device or destruction 
efficiency of a control device according to the requirements of Sec.  
63.2853(a)(5)(i), within 60 days after the date of completing each 
performance test, you must submit the results of the performance test 
following the procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by EPA's Electronic 
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on EPA's ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the 
performance test to EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting 
Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through EPA's Central Data 
Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a 
file format generated through the use of EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you 
may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup 
language (XML) schema listed on EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
EPA's ERT as listed on EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. The 
results of the performance test must be included as an attachment in 
the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema 
listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or 
alternative file to EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of 
the information submitted under paragraph (f) or (g) of this section is 
CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to 
be CBI, to EPA. The file must be generated through the use of EPA's ERT 
or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed 
on EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, 
or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the 
medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI 
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted 
must be submitted to EPA via EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (f)(1) 
of this section.
    (g) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the

[[Page 30840]]

Federal Register], you must submit the initial notification required in 
Sec.  63.2860(b) and the annual compliance certification, deviation 
report, and initial startup report required in Sec.  63.2861(a), (b), 
and (e) to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's 
CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov). The owner or operator must upload to CEDRI 
an electronic copy of each applicable notification in portable document 
format (PDF). The applicable notification must be submitted by the 
deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which 
the reports are submitted. You must use the appropriate electronic 
report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date report templates become 
available will be listed on the CEDRI website. The report must be 
submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the 
method in which the report is submitted. If you claim some of the 
information required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business 
information (CBI), submit a complete report, including information 
claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The report must be generated using the 
appropriate form on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact 
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and 
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy 
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file 
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA's CDX as 
described earlier in this paragraph.
    (h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for 
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a 
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in 
paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an 
outage of either EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time 
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is 
due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow 
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion 
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (i) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for failure 
to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of 
force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs 
(i)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior 
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a 
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such 
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), 
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond 
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
10. Section 63.2862 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) and (c) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c)(3)(ii), (d) introductory text, and (e) 
introductory text; and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (f) through (h).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.2862  What records must I keep?

* * * * *
    (b) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], prepare a plan for demonstrating compliance 
(as described in Sec.  63.2851) and a SSM plan (as described in Sec.  
63.2852). In these two plans, describe the procedures you will follow 
in obtaining and recording data, and determining compliance under 
normal operations or a SSM subject to the Sec.  63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2) 
initial startup period or the Sec.  63.2850(e)(2) malfunction period. 
Complete both plans before the compliance date for your source and keep 
them on-site and readily available as long as the source is 
operational. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], the requirement to prepare a SSM 
plan no longer applies, and the plan for demonstrating compliance must 
only describe the procedures you develop according to the requirements 
of Sec.  63.2851.
    (c) If your source processes any listed oilseed, record the items 
in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section:
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) The operating status of your source, as described in Sec.  
63.2853(a)(2). On the log for each type of listed oilseed that is not 
being processed during a normal operating period, you must record which 
type of listed oilseed is being processed in addition to the source 
operating status.
* * * * *
    (d) After your source has processed listed oilseed for 12 operating 
months,

[[Page 30841]]

record the items in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section by 
the end of the calendar month following each operating month:
* * * * *
    (e) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], for each SSM event subject to an initial 
startup period as described in Sec.  63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2), or a 
malfunction period as described in Sec.  63.2850(e)(2), record the 
items in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section by the end of 
the calendar month following each month in which the initial startup 
period or malfunction period occurred. The provisions of this paragraph 
(e) do not apply on and after [date 181 days after date of publication 
of final rule in the Federal Register].
* * * * *
    (f) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], for each initial startup period subject 
to Sec.  63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2), record the items in paragraphs (f)(1) 
through (6) of this section by the end of the calendar month following 
each month in which the initial startup period occurred.
    (1) A description and dates of the initial startup period, and 
reason it qualifies as an initial startup.
    (2) An estimate of the solvent loss in gallons for the duration of 
the initial startup or malfunction period with supporting 
documentation.
    (3) Nominal design rate of the extractor and operating rate of the 
extractor for the duration of the initial startup period, or permitted 
production rate and actual production rate of your source for the 
duration of the initial startup period.
    (4) Measured values for temperature and pressure for the 
desolventizing and oil distillation units associated with solvent 
recovery.
    (5) Information to indicate the mineral oil absorption system was 
operating at all times during the initial startup period.
    (6) Information to indicate the solvent condensers were operating 
at all times during the initial startup period.
    (g) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], keep the records of deviations specified 
in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section for each compliance 
determination you make in which the compliance ratio exceeds 1.00 as 
determined under Sec.  63.2840(c) or if you deviate from the work 
practice standard for an initial startup period subject to Sec.  
63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2).
    (1) The number of deviations, and the date, time, and duration of 
each deviation.
    (2) A statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown 
cause, if applicable).
    (2) For each deviation, a list of the affected sources or 
equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used 
to estimate the emissions.
    (3) Actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  
63.2840(g), and any corrective actions taken to return the affected 
unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (4) If you deviate from the work practice standard for an initial 
startup period, a description of the deviation from the work practice 
standard.
    (h) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are 
submitted electronically via EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in 
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not 
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and 
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or EPA as part 
of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
11. Section 63.2870 is amended by revising Table 1 to Sec.  63.2870 to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.2870  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

* * * * *

     Table 1 to Sec.   63.2870--Applicability of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A, to 40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart GGGG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Subject of       Brief description
   General provisions citation         citation         of requirement    Applies to subpart      Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1.....................  Applicability.....  Initial             Yes...............
                                                       applicability
                                                       determination;
                                                       applicability
                                                       after standard
                                                       established;
                                                       permit
                                                       requirements;
                                                       extensions;
                                                       notifications.
Sec.   63.2.....................  Definitions.......  Definitions for     Yes...............  Except as
                                                       part 63 standards.                      specifically
                                                                                               provided in this
                                                                                               subpart.
Sec.   63.3.....................  Units and           Units and           Yes...............
                                   abbreviations.      abbreviations for
                                                       part 63 standards.
Sec.   63.4.....................  Prohibited          Prohibited          Yes...............
                                   activities and      activities;
                                   circumvention.      compliance date;
                                                       circumvention;
                                                       severability.
Sec.   63.5.....................  Construction/       Applicability;      Yes...............  Except for
                                   reconstruction.     applications;                           paragraphs in
                                                       approvals.                              Sec.   63.5 as
                                                                                               listed below in
                                                                                               this table.
Sec.   63.5(c)..................  [Reserved]........
Sec.   63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H)........  Application for     Type and quantity   No................  All sources emit
                                   approval.           of HAP, operating                       HAP. Subpart GGGG
                                                       parameters.                             does not require
                                                                                               control from
                                                                                               specific emission
                                                                                               points.
Sec.   63.5(d)(1)(ii)(I)........  [Reserved]........

[[Page 30842]]

 
Sec.   63.5(d)(1)(iii), (d)(2),   ..................  Application for     No................  The requirements
 (d)(3)(ii).                                           approval.                               of the
                                                                                               application for
                                                                                               approval for new,
                                                                                               reconstructed and
                                                                                               significantly
                                                                                               modified sources
                                                                                               are described in
                                                                                               Sec.   63.2860(b)
                                                                                               and (c) of
                                                                                               subpart GGGG.
                                                                                               General provision
                                                                                               requirements for
                                                                                               identification of
                                                                                               HAP emission
                                                                                               points or
                                                                                               estimates of
                                                                                               actual emissions
                                                                                               are not required.
                                                                                               Descriptions of
                                                                                               control and
                                                                                               methods, and the
                                                                                               estimated and
                                                                                               actual control
                                                                                               efficiency of
                                                                                               such do not
                                                                                               apply.
                                                                                               Requirements for
                                                                                               describing
                                                                                               control equipment
                                                                                               and the estimated
                                                                                               and actual
                                                                                               control
                                                                                               efficiency of
                                                                                               such equipment
                                                                                               apply only to
                                                                                               control equipment
                                                                                               to which the
                                                                                               subpart GGGG
                                                                                               requirements for
                                                                                               quantifying.
Sec.   63.6.....................  Applicability of    Applicability.....  Yes...............  Except for
                                   General                                                     paragraphs in
                                   Provisions.                                                 Sec.   63.6 as
                                                                                               listed below in
                                                                                               this table.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1) through (3)...  Compliance dates,   ..................  No................  Section 63.2834 of
                                   new and                                                     subpart GGGG
                                   reconstructed                                               specifies the
                                   sources.                                                    compliance dates
                                                                                               for new and
                                                                                               reconstructed
                                                                                               sources.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6)...............  [Reserved]........
Sec.   63.6(c)(3) and (4).......  [Reserved]........
Sec.   63.6(d)..................  [Reserved]........
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)............  Operation and       ..................  Yes, before [date   See Sec.
                                   Maintenance.                            181 days after      63.2840(g) for
                                                                           date of             general duty
                                                                           publication of      requirement.
                                                                           final rule in the
                                                                           Federal Register].
                                                                          No, on or after
                                                                           [date 181 days
                                                                           after date of
                                                                           publication of
                                                                           final rule in the
                                                                           Federal Register].
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)...........  Operation and       Requirement to      Yes, before [date   See Sec.
                                   Maintenance.        correct             181 days after      63.2840(g) for
                                                       malfunctions as     date of             general duty
                                                       soon as             publication of      requirement.
                                                       practicable..       final rule in the
                                                                           Federal Register].
                                                                          No, on or after
                                                                           [date 181 days
                                                                           after date of
                                                                           publication of
                                                                           final rule in the
                                                                           Federal Register].
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(i) through      Operation and       ..................  Yes, before [date   Minimize emissions
 (e)(3)(ii) and Sec.               maintenance                             181 days after      to the extent
 63.6(e)(3)(v) through (vii).      requirements.                           date of             practicable. On
                                                                           publication of      or after [date
                                                                           final rule in the   181 days after
                                                                           Federal Register].  date of
                                                                                               publication of
                                                                                               final rule in the
                                                                                               Federal
                                                                                               Register], see
                                                                                               Sec.   63.2840(g)
                                                                                               for general duty
                                                                                               requirement.

[[Page 30843]]

 
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(iii)..........  Operation and       ..................  No................  Minimize emissions
                                   maintenance                                                 to the extent
                                   requirements.                                               practicable. On
                                                                                               or after [date
                                                                                               181 days after
                                                                                               date of
                                                                                               publication of
                                                                                               final rule in the
                                                                                               Federal
                                                                                               Register], see
                                                                                               Sec.   63.2840(g)
                                                                                               for general duty
                                                                                               requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(iv)...........  Operation and       ..................  No................  Report SSM and in
                                   maintenance                                                 accordance with
                                   requirements.                                               Sec.   63.2861(c)
                                                                                               and (d).
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(viii).........  Operation and       ..................  Yes, before [date   Except, before
                                   maintenance                             181 days after      [date 181 days
                                   requirements.                           date of             after date of
                                                                           publication of      publication of
                                                                           final rule in the   final rule in the
                                                                           Federal Register].  Federal
                                                                          No, on or after      Register], report
                                                                           [date 181 days      each revision to
                                                                           after date of       your SSM plan in
                                                                           publication of      accordance with
                                                                           final rule in the   Sec.   63.2861(c)
                                                                           Federal Register].  rather than Sec.
                                                                                                63.10(d)(5) as
                                                                                               required under
                                                                                               Sec.
                                                                                               63.6(e)(3)(viii).
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(ix)...........  Title V permit....  ..................  Yes, before [date
                                                                           181 days after
                                                                           date of
                                                                           publication of
                                                                           final rule in the
                                                                           Federal Register].
                                                                          No, on or after
                                                                           [date 181 days
                                                                           after date of
                                                                           publication of
                                                                           final rule in the
                                                                           Federal Register].
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)...............  Compliance with     Comply with         Yes, before [date
                                   nonopacity          emission            181 days after
                                   emission            standards at all    date of
                                   standards except    times except        publication of
                                   during SSM.         during SSM.         final rule in the
                                                                           Federal Register].
                                                                          No, on or after
                                                                           [date 181 days
                                                                           after date of
                                                                           publication of
                                                                           final rule in the
                                                                           Federal Register].
Sec.   63.6(f)(2) and (3).......  Methods for         ..................  Yes...............
                                   Determining
                                   Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(g)..................  Use of an           ..................  Yes...............
                                   Alternative
                                   Standard.
Sec.   63.6(h)..................  Opacity/Visible     ..................  No................  Subpart GGGG has
                                   emission (VE)                                               no opacity or VE
                                   standards.                                                  standards.
Sec.   63.6(i)..................  Compliance          Procedures and      Yes...............
                                   extension.          criteria for
                                                       responsible
                                                       agency to grant
                                                       compliance
                                                       extension.
Sec.   63.6(j)..................  Presidential        President may       Yes...............
                                   compliance          exempt source
                                   exemption.          category from
                                                       requirement to
                                                       comply with
                                                       subpart.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)...............  Performance         Representative      Yes, before [date   See Sec.
                                   testing             conditions for      181 days after      63.2853(a)(5)(i)(
                                   requirements.       performance test.   date of             A) for
                                                                           publication of      performance
                                                                           final rule in the   testing
                                                                           Federal Register].  requirements.
                                                                          No, on or after
                                                                           [date 181 days
                                                                           after date of
                                                                           publication of
                                                                           final rule in the
                                                                           Federal Register].

[[Page 30844]]

 
Sec.   63.7(e)(2) through (4),    Performance         Schedule,           Yes...............  Subpart GGGG
 (f), (g), and (h).                testing             conditions,                             requires
                                   requirements.       notifications and                       performance
                                                       procedures.                             testing only if
                                                                                               the source
                                                                                               applies
                                                                                               additional
                                                                                               control that
                                                                                               destroys solvent.
                                                                                               Section
                                                                                               63.2850(a)(6)
                                                                                               requires sources
                                                                                               to follow the
                                                                                               performance
                                                                                               testing
                                                                                               guidelines of the
                                                                                               General
                                                                                               Provisions if a
                                                                                               control is added.
Sec.   63.8.....................  Monitoring          ..................  No................  Subpart GGGG does
                                   requirements.                                               not require
                                                                                               monitoring other
                                                                                               than as specified
                                                                                               therein.
Sec.   63.9.....................  Notification        Applicability and   Yes...............  Except for
                                   requirements.       state delegation.                       paragraphs in
                                                                                               Sec.   63.9 as
                                                                                               listed below in
                                                                                               this table.
Sec.   63.9(b)(2)...............  Notification        Initial             No................  Section 63.2860(a)
                                   requirements.       notification                            of subpart GGGG
                                                       requirements for                        specifies the
                                                       existing sources.                       requirements of
                                                                                               the initial
                                                                                               notification for
                                                                                               existing sources.
Sec.   63.9(b)(3) through (5)...  Notification        Notification        Yes...............  Except the
                                   requirements.       requirement for                         information
                                                       certain new/                            requirements
                                                       reconstructed                           differ as
                                                       sources.                                described in Sec.
                                                                                                 63.2860(b) of
                                                                                               subpart GGGG.
Sec.   63.9(e)..................  Notification of     Notify responsible  Yes...............  Applies only if
                                   performance test.   agency 60 days                          performance
                                                       ahead.                                  testing is
                                                                                               performed.
Sec.   63.9(f)..................  Notification of VE/ Notify responsible  No................  Subpart GGGG has
                                   opacity             agency 30 days                          no opacity or VE
                                   observations.       ahead.                                  standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)..................  Additional          Notification of     No................  Subpart GGGG has
                                   notifications       performance                             no CMS
                                   when using a        evaluation;                             requirements.
                                   continuous          Notification
                                   monitoring system   using COMS data;
                                   (CMS).              notification that
                                                       exceeded
                                                       criterion for
                                                       relative accuracy.
Sec.   63.9(h)..................  Notification of     Contents..........  No................  Section 63.2860(d)
                                   compliance status.                                          of subpart GGGG
                                                                                               specifies
                                                                                               requirements for
                                                                                               the notification
                                                                                               of compliance
                                                                                               status.
Sec.   63.10....................  Recordkeeping/      Schedule for        Yes...............  Except for
                                   reporting.          reporting, record                       paragraphs in
                                                       storage.                                Sec.   63.10 as
                                                                                               listed below in
                                                                                               this table.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)...........  Recordkeeping.....  Record SSM event..  Yes, before [date   Before [date 181
                                                                           181 days after      days after date
                                                                           date of             of publication of
                                                                           publication of      final rule in the
                                                                           final rule in the   Federal
                                                                           Federal Register].  Register],
                                                                          No, on or after      applicable to
                                                                           [date 181 days      periods when
                                                                           after date of       sources must
                                                                           publication of      implement their
                                                                           final rule in the   SSM plan as
                                                                           Federal Register].  specified in
                                                                                               subpart GGGG. On
                                                                                               or after [date
                                                                                               181 days after
                                                                                               date of
                                                                                               publication of
                                                                                               final rule in the
                                                                                               Federal
                                                                                               Register], meet
                                                                                               the requirements
                                                                                               of Sec.
                                                                                               63.2862(f).

[[Page 30845]]

 
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii) and (iii)  Recordkeeping.....  Malfunction of air  No................  Before [date 181
                                                       pollution                               days after date
                                                       equipment.                              of publication of
                                                                                               final rule in the
                                                                                               Federal
                                                                                               Register],
                                                                                               applies only if
                                                                                               air pollution
                                                                                               control equipment
                                                                                               has been added to
                                                                                               the process and
                                                                                               is necessary for
                                                                                               the source to
                                                                                               meet the emission
                                                                                               limit. On or
                                                                                               after [date 181
                                                                                               days after date
                                                                                               of publication of
                                                                                               final rule in the
                                                                                               Federal
                                                                                               Register], meet
                                                                                               the requirements
                                                                                               of Sec.
                                                                                               63.2862(g).
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v)..  Recordkeeping.....  SSM recordkeeping.  Yes, before [date   ..................
                                                                           181 days after
                                                                           date of
                                                                           publication of
                                                                           final rule in the
                                                                           Federal Register].
                                                                          No, on or after
                                                                           [date 181 days
                                                                           after date of
                                                                           publication of
                                                                           final rule in the
                                                                           Federal Register].
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)..........  Recordkeeping.....  CMS recordkeeping.  No................  Subpart GGGG has
                                                                                               no CMS
                                                                                               requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(viii) and      Recordkeeping.....  Conditions of       Yes...............  Applies only if
 (ix).                                                 performance test.                       performance tests
                                                                                               are performed.
                                                                                               Subpart GGGG does
                                                                                               not have any CMS
                                                                                               opacity or VE
                                                                                               observation
                                                                                               requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(x) through     Recordkeeping.....  CMS, performance    No................  Subpart GGGG does
 (xii).                                                testing, and                            not require CMS.
                                                       opacity and VE
                                                       observations
                                                       recordkeeping.
Sec.   63.10(c).................  Recordkeeping.....  Additional CMS      No................  Subpart GGGG does
                                                       recordkeeping.                          not require CMS.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)..............  Reporting.........  Reporting           Yes...............  Applies only if
                                                       performance test                        performance
                                                       results.                                testing is
                                                                                               performed.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)..............  Reporting.........  Reporting opacity   No................  Subpart GGGG has
                                                       or VE                                   no opacity or VE
                                                       observations.                           standards.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)..............  Reporting.........  Progress reports..  Yes...............  Applies only if a
                                                                                               condition of
                                                                                               compliance
                                                                                               extension exists.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)..............  Reporting.........  SSM reporting.....  No................  Section 63.2861(c)
                                                                                               and (d) specify
                                                                                               SSM reporting
                                                                                               requirements.
Sec.   63.10(e).................  Reporting.........  Additional CMS      No................  Subpart GGGG does
                                                       reports.                                not require CMS.
Sec.   63.11....................  Control device      Requirements for    Yes...............  Applies only if
                                   requirements.       flares.                                 your source uses
                                                                                               a flare to
                                                                                               control solvent
                                                                                               emissions.
                                                                                               Subpart GGGG does
                                                                                               not require
                                                                                               flares.
Sec.   63.12....................  State authority     State authority to  Yes...............
                                   and delegations.    enforce standards.
Sec.   63.13....................  State/regional      Addresses where     Yes...............
                                   addresses.          reports,
                                                       notifications,
                                                       and requests are
                                                       sent.
Sec.   63.14....................  Incorporation by    Test methods        Yes...............
                                   reference.          incorporated by
                                                       reference.
Sec.   63.15....................  Availability of     Public and          Yes...............
                                   information and     confidential
                                   confidentiality.    information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 30846]]

0
12. Section 63.2872 is amended by:
0
 a. Revising the definitions for ``Compliance ratio'', ``Hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP)'', ``Initial startup period'' and ``Malfunction 
period'';
0
b. Adding a definition for ``Nonoperating month''; and
0
c. Revising the definitions for ``Nonoperating period'', ``Normal 
operating period'' and ``Operating month''.
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  63.2872  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Compliance ratio means a ratio of the actual HAP loss in gallons 
from the previous 12 operating months to an allowable HAP loss in 
gallons, which is determined by using oilseed solvent loss factors in 
Table 1 of Sec.  63.2840, the weighted average volume fraction of HAP 
in solvent received for the previous 12 operating months, and the tons 
of each type of listed oilseed processed in the previous 12 operating 
months. Months during which no listed oilseed is processed, or months 
during which the Sec.  63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2) initial startup period 
or, before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in 
the Federal Register], the Sec.  63.2850(e)(2) malfunction period 
applies, are excluded from this calculation. Equation 2 of Sec.  
63.2840 is used to calculate this value. If the value is less than or 
equal to 1.00, the source is in compliance. If the value is greater 
than 1.00, the source is deviating from compliance.
* * * * *
    Hazardous air pollutant (HAP) means any substance or mixture of 
substances listed as a hazardous air pollutant under section 112(b) of 
the Clean Air Act.
* * * * *
    Initial startup period means a period of time from the initial 
startup date of a new, reconstructed, or significantly modified source, 
for which you choose to operate the source under an initial startup 
period subject to Sec.  63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2), until the date your 
source operates for 15 consecutive days at or above 90 percent of the 
nominal design rate of the extractor or at or above 90 percent of the 
permitted production rate for your source. The initial startup period 
following initial startup of a new or reconstructed source may not 
exceed 6 calendar months. The initial startup period following a 
significant modification may not exceed 3 calendar months. Solvent and 
oilseed inventory information recorded during the initial startup 
period is excluded from use in any compliance ratio determinations.
* * * * *
    Malfunction period means a period of time between the beginning and 
end of a process malfunction and the time reasonably necessary for a 
source to correct the malfunction for which you choose to operate the 
source under a malfunction period subject to Sec.  63.2850(e)(2). This 
period may include the duration of an unscheduled process shutdown, 
continued operation during a malfunction, or the subsequent process 
startup after a shutdown resulting from a malfunction. During a 
malfunction period, a source complies with the standards by minimizing 
HAP emissions to the extent practicable. Therefore, solvent and oilseed 
inventory information recorded during a malfunction period is excluded 
from use in any compliance ratio determinations.
* * * * *
    Nonoperating month means any entire calendar or accounting month in 
which a source processes no agricultural product.
    Nonoperating period means any period of time in which a source 
processes no agricultural product. This operating status does not apply 
during any period in which the source operates under an initial startup 
period as described in Sec.  63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2), or, before [date 
181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal 
Register], a malfunction period as described in Sec.  63.2850(e)(2).
    Normal operating period or normal operation means any period of 
time in which a source processes a listed oilseed that is not 
categorized as an initial startup period as described in Sec.  
63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2), or, before [date 181 days after date of 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a malfunction 
period as described in Sec.  63.2850(e)(2). At the beginning and ending 
dates of a normal operating period, solvent and oilseed inventory 
information is recorded and included in the compliance ratio 
determination.
* * * * *
    Operating month means any calendar or accounting month in which a 
source processes any quantity of listed oilseed, excluding any entire 
calendar or accounting month in which the source operated under an 
initial startup period as described in Sec.  63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2), 
or, before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in 
the Federal Register], a malfunction period as described in Sec.  
63.2850(e)(2). An operating month may include time intervals 
characterized by several types of operating status. However, an 
operating month must have at least one normal operating period.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-13110 Filed 6-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.