National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Residual Risk and Technology Review, 15608-15636 [2020-04459]

Download as PDF 15608 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0208; FRL–10006–06– 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: Final rule. AGENCY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review (RTR) conducted for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). Based on the results of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) risk review, the Agency is finalizing the decision that risks due to emissions of air toxics from this source category are acceptable and that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Under the technology review, the EPA is finalizing the decision that there are no developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that necessitate revision of the standards. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing no revisions to the numerical emission limits based on the risk and technology reviews. We are taking final action to correct and clarify regulatory provisions related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), including removing general exemptions for periods of SSM, adding alternative work practice standards for periods of initial startup for new or significantly modified sources, and making other minor clarifications or corrections. The EPA is also taking final action to add provisions for electronic reporting of certain notifications and reports and performance test results; and make other minor clarifications and corrections. These final amendments will result in improved compliance and implementation of the rule. DATES: This final rule is effective on March 18, 2020. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0208. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 (CBI) 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 form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final 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 Mr. 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: woody.matthew@epa.gov. For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Ms. 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: 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: CAA Clean Air Act CBI Confidential Business Information CDX Central Data Exchange CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface CFR Code of Federal Regulations EPA Environmental Protection Agency HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) HI hazard index PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 HQ hazard quotient ICR Information Collection Request km kilometer MACT maximum achievable control technology MIR maximum individual risk NAICS North American Industry Classification System NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OMB Office of Management and Budget PRA Paperwork Reduction Act REL reference exposure level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RTR residual risk and technology review SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction the Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index tpy tons per year UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act VCS voluntary consensus standards Background information. On June 27, 2019, the EPA proposed revisions to the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP in conjunction with our RTR for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category (84 FR 30812). In this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize some of the more significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA’s responses to those comments is available in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for Solvent Extraction For Vegetable Oil Production, in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0208. A ‘‘track changes’’ version of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action is available in the docket. 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? C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? B. What is the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category? C. What changes did we propose for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category in our June 27, 2019, RTR proposal? III. What is included in this final rule? A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the Solvent E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category? B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category? C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during periods of SSM? D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP? E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards? IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category? A. Residual Risk Review for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category B. Technology Review for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category C. SSM for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category D. Technical amendments to the MACT standards for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted 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? F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct? G. What analysis of children’s environmental health did we conduct? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Orders 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 15609 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 L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble. TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ACTION Source category 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 ..................................... a North Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production .................... 311211 311221 311225 311119 311224 311225 American Industry Classification System. Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final action for the source category listed. To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble. B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 NAICS a code NESHAP In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at: https:// www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/solvent-extraction-vegetableoil-production-national-emission. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 Register version and key technical documents at this same website. Additional information is available on the RTR website at https:// www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/risk-and-technology-reviewnational-emissions-standardshazardous. This information includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites for the RTR source categories. C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by May 18, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 15610 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination of the above. For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations (see CAA section 112(d)(3)). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT standards, we must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 environmental impacts, and energy requirements. In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)’’ no less frequently than every 8 years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f).1 For more information on the statutory authority for this rule, see 84 FR 30812, June 27, 2019. B. What is the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category? The EPA promulgated the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP on April 12, 2001 (66 FR 19006). The standards are 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 The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 2008) (‘‘If EPA determines that the existing technology-based standards provide an ‘ample margin of safety,’ then the Agency is free to readopt those standards during the residual risk rulemaking.’’). PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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 source category covered by this MACT standard currently includes 89 facilities. 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 irritation, dizziness, headaches, and nausea. Long-term exposure can cause permanent nerve damage. The current NESHAP controls 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 or equal to 1.00 (i.e., the actual HAP loss is no greater 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. Facilities may also adjust their solvent loss to account for cases where solvent is routed through a closed vent system E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations to a control device that is used to reduce emissions to meet the standard. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 C. What changes did we propose for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category in our June 27, 2019, RTR proposal? On June 27, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG, that took into consideration the RTR analyses. In the proposed rule, we proposed that the risks from the source category are acceptable and the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In addition, pursuant to the technology review for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category, we proposed no revisions to the current standards based on these analyses. We proposed revisions to the SSM provisions of the standards to ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 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. We therefore proposed that the standards would apply at all times, including during startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions (see 40 CFR 63.2840(a) and Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870 (General Provisions Applicability Table). Additionally, we proposed to remove requirements that allowed sources to previously designate a source operating status period as a ‘‘malfunction period’’ and exclude data collected during the ‘‘malfunction period’’ when determining compliance with the emission standards.2 Under the 2 The 2001 NESHAP allowed for facilities to determine compliance based on the distinct categorized operating status of the facility (normal operating, nonoperating, initial startup, malfunction, or exempt) during a compliance period, as defined in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2853. Existing and new sources operating during a malfunction period could either meet the compliance requirements for normal operation periods in 40 CFR 63.2850 and Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850 or the requirements for malfunction periods subject to 40 CFR 63.2850(e)(2) and Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850 (for which no limits or work practices applied). Sources operating during a malfunction period were not required to determine compliance using data recorded for the malfunction period. We proposed to remove the option for facilities to categorize the operating period as a malfunction period and to remove the option to meet the requirements for malfunction periods subject to 40 CFR 63.2850(e)(2) and Table 1 of 40 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 15611 proposed rule, sources that continue to operate must instead meet the emission standard requirements for either a normal operating period or the work practice standards for an initial startup period (if applicable) in 40 CFR 63.2850 and Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. In proposing the revised standards, the EPA considered whether to set separate standards for startup and shutdown periods, but only found that separate standards were necessary for initial startup periods for new or significantly modified sources. For periods of initial startup following new construction or significant modification, we proposed work practice standards and a requirement to establish and follow sitespecific operating ranges for temperature and vacuum for the desolventizing and oil distillation units associated with solvent recovery, as well as associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements (e.g., initial startup report) for these periods. We proposed to require electronic reporting 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). We also proposed minor clarifications and corrections to five definitions (i.e., ‘‘Compliance ratio,’’ ‘‘Nonoperating period,’’ ‘‘Normal operating period,’’ ‘‘Operating month,’’ and ‘‘Hazardous air pollutant (HAP)’’) and to 40 CFR 63.2840(a)(1) and (b)(1), 40 CFR 63.2853(a)(2), 40 CFR 63.2855(a)(3), and Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. Refer to section IV.D of the June 27, 2019, proposal preamble for further discussion of these proposed amendments and the EPA’s rationale for these changes (84 FR 60825). reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, and performance test reports; and other minor editorial and technical changes. This action reflects several changes to the proposed rule in consideration of comments received during the public comment period as described in section IV of this preamble. III. What is included in this final rule? This action finalizes the EPA’s determinations pursuant to the RTR provisions of CAA section 112 for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category. This action also finalizes other changes to the NESHAP, including 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 (D.C. Cir. 2008), provisions for electronic reporting of initial notifications, initial startup C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during periods of SSM? We are finalizing the proposed amendments to the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP to remove and revise provisions related to SSM. As detailed in section IV.D of the proposal preamble (84 FR 30825), the final amendments to the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP require that the standards apply at all times (see 40 CFR 63.2840(a) and Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870 (General Provisions applicability table), consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). We are finalizing that the emission standards for normal operation apply at all times, except for periods of initial CFR 63.2850, such that the standards apply at all times. Sources that continue to operate during a malfunction must continue to meet the general duty requirements at 40 CFR 63.2840(g). The term ‘‘malfunction period’’ is retained in the rule only as it applies to facilities prior to September 15, 2020. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category? This section describes the final risk determination for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP being promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112(f). The EPA proposed no changes to the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP based on the risk review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In this action, we are finalizing our proposed determination that risks from this source category are acceptable, and that the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Section IV.A.3 of this preamble provides a summary of key comments we received regarding the risk review and our responses to those comments. B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category? The EPA is finalizing the technology review as proposed. We determined that there are no developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this source category. Therefore, we are not finalizing revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 15612 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations startup for new and significantly modified sources, as described below in this section and in section IV.C of this preamble. For periods of initial startup for new or significantly modified sources, we are finalizing work practice standards, including operation of the mineral oil absorption system and solvent condensers at all times during the initial startup period, and a requirement to establish and follow sitespecific operating ranges for temperature and vacuum for the desolventizing and oil distillation units associated with solvent recovery, as well as associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements (e.g., initial startup report) for these periods. Facilities will continue to have the option to meet the requirements for normal operating periods in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. The EPA is also finalizing the definition of ‘‘initial startup period’’ and the requirements of 40 CFR 62.2850(c)(2) and (d)(2) to clarify that the end of the initial startup period occurs when the plant meets and maintains steady-state operations. Steady-state is 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. Any initial startup period may not exceed 6 calendar months after startup for new or reconstructed sources or 3 calendar months after startup for modified sources. As discussed in section IV.D of the June 27, 2019, proposal preamble, 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, although the EPA has the discretion to set standards for malfunctions where feasible. We noted that our interpretation regarding CAA section 112 not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016). The EPA further explained that, ‘‘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’’ (84 FR 30827). While we requested comment on work practice standards during periods of malfunction, and received some information in support of such standards, we did not receive sufficient information on which to base a VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 malfunction standard. As further explained at proposal, ‘‘[i]n the 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 preventive 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’’ (84 FR 30828). For these reasons, we are not setting separate standards for periods of malfunction. Under the final rule, sources that experience an unscheduled shutdown as a result of a malfunction, continue to operate during a malfunction (including the period reasonably necessary to correct the malfunction), or start up after a shutdown resulting from a malfunction must instead meet the emission standard requirements for either a normal operating period or the work practice standards for an initial startup period (if a new or significantly modified source) in 40 CFR 63.2850 and Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. Although we did not propose and are not finalizing work practice standards for periods of malfunction, we are finalizing revisions to deviation reporting to account for one-time malfunction events in which the potential solvent loss could result in a deviation for one or more consecutive monthly compliance ratio determinations. Specifically, we have revised the final rule to include a requirement that facilities flag and provide an explanation for any deviation from the compliance ratio for which a deviation report is being submitted for more than one consecutive month (i.e., include a reference to the original date and PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 reporting of the deviation). Although a facility would need to retain records of any deviation and the corrective action(s) performed, no additional corrective action would be required at the time the 12-month compliance ratio is officially exceeded in subsequent months if the facility demonstrates the exceedance is from a prior malfunction that has been corrected. As is explained in more detail below, we are finalizing revisions related to requirements that apply during periods of SSM. We eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption. The EPA also made changes to the rule to remove or modify inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant language in the absence of the SSM exemption. Refer to sections III.C.1 through III.C.6 of this preamble for a detailed discussion of the final amendments. 1. 40 CFR 63.2840 General Duty We are finalizing as proposed revisions to the General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ‘‘Yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘No.’’ The EPA is instead adding 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 general duty to minimize emissions continues to apply during periods of malfunction and sources must still address malfunctions expeditiously in order to maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, and minimize emissions. The EPA is also revising the General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ‘‘Yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘No’’ to remove 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). 2. SSM Plan As proposed, the EPA is revising the General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to 40 CFR 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 revising 40 CFR 63.2852, which cross-references the requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3). The final amendments remove requirements related to the SSM plan. E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 3. Compliance With Standards The EPA is revising the General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by revising the text in column 4 and removing the text in column 5 to clarify that the SSM exemption previously applied but will not apply going forward. 4. 40 CFR 63.2853 Testing Performance We are also finalizing a revision to the performance testing requirements. The EPA is revising the General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ‘‘Yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘No,’’ and adding a revised performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.2853(a)(5)(i)(A). The final performance testing provisions prohibit performance testing for purposes of demonstrating compliance during startup, shutdown, or malfunction because these conditions are not representative of normal operating periods. The final rule also requires that operators maintain records to document that operating conditions during the test represent normal operations. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 5. 40 CFR 63.2862 Recordkeeping The EPA is revising the General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ‘‘Yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘No,’’ and is adding recordkeeping requirements to 40 CFR 63.2862(f). The final revisions require owners or operators of sources subject to a work practice standard during initial startup times to 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 final revisions also require facilities to record information including the measured temperature and pressure for desolventizing and oil distillation units; an indication that the mineral oil absorption system was operating at all times; and (3) an indication that the solvent condensers were operating at all times. The EPA is revising the General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ‘‘Yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘No.’’ The final rule includes recordkeeping requirements for malfunctions in 40 CFR 63.2862(g), including any ‘‘failure to meet an VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 applicable standard’’ (including any deviation from the emissions standards of 40 CFR 63.2840 or the work practice standards for periods of initial startup). Source owners or operators must record the date and duration of the ‘‘failure.’’ We have revised the final rule requirements from proposal to clarify how to designate the date a deviation occurred and the duration of the deviation. For deviations from the compliance ratio, the date of the deviation is the date the compliance ratio determination is made, and the duration of the deviation is the length of time taken to address the cause of the deviation (including the duration of any malfunction) and to return the affected unit(s) to its normal or usual manner of operation. For deviations from the work practice standard during the initial startup period, the date of the deviation is the date when the facility fails to comply with any of the work practice standards in 40 CFR 63.2840(h), and the duration of the deviation is the length of time taken to return to the work practice standards. We have also removed the requirement to record and report the time of the deviation as described in section IV.C of this preamble. The EPA is adding 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. The EPA is revising the General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ‘‘Yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘No’’ to remove requirements related to the SSM plan. The final rule includes a requirement to record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions in 40 CFR 63.2862(g). 6. 40 CFR 63.2861 Reporting To replace the SSM reporting requirements, the EPA is eliminating 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 removing the requirement in 40 CFR 63.2861(d) to submit an immediate report for SSM when a source failed to meet an applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. The EPA is PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 15613 instead requiring that existing or new source owners or operators that fail to meet the applicable emission standards (including sources that experience a malfunction) or the work practice standards for initial startup periods at any time must report the information concerning such events in the deviation report, including the number, date, 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. For sources operating under an initial startup period, the EPA is also finalizing a provision that source owners or operators that fail to meet the work practice standard must include a description of the deviation and include the records for the initial startup period in 40 CFR 63.2862(f). Finally, the EPA is finalizing 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, including a compliance certification indicating whether the source was in compliance with the work practice standard of 40 CFR 63.2840(h). The initial report must be submitted within 30 days of the end of the initial startup period. The legal rationale and detailed changes for SSM periods that we are finalizing here are set forth in the proposed rule (see 84 FR 30825). Section IV.C of this preamble provides a summary of key comments we received on the SSM provisions and our responses. D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP? This rule also finalizes, as proposed, revisions to several other NESHAP requirements. To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility, we are finalizing a requirement that owners and operators of facilities in the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category submit electronic copies of initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, and performance test reports through the EPA’s CDX using the CEDRI. 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. We also are finalizing, as proposed, provisions that allow E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 15614 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations facility operators the ability to seek extensions for submitting electronic reports for circumstances beyond the control of the facility, i.e., for a possible outage in the CDX or CEDRI or for a force majeure event in the time just prior to a report’s due date, as well as the process to assert such a claim. The EPA is finalizing several minor technical editorial changes to the rule. The EPA is finalizing several definitions in 40 CFR 63.2872 to harmonize with the removal of the SSM requirements and to clarify existing provisions. The definitions of ‘‘Compliance ratio,’’ ‘‘Nonoperating period,’’ ‘‘Normal operating period,’’ and ‘‘Operating month’’ are revised in the final rule to clarify that we have removed malfunction periods as a distinct source operating status during which no limits or work practices applied. The definition of ‘‘Normal operating period’’ is also revised to clarify that this definition also applies to ‘‘normal operation.’’ The EPA is revising the definition of ‘‘Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP)’’ as proposed to remove the reference to the date of April 12, 2001. Finally, the EPA is adding a definition for ‘‘Nonoperating month’’ as proposed. The EPA is finalizing 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 revising Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850 to correct a typographical error in row ‘‘(a)’’ for malfunction periods. The legal rationale and detailed changes for these revisions are set forth in the proposed rule (see 84 FR 30830). E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards? The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this action are effective on March 18, 2020. Existing affected sources and affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before June 27, 2019, must comply with the amendments no later than 180 days after March 18, 2020. Affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after June 27, 2019 must comply with all requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG, no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later. The EPA is finalizing three changes that would affect ongoing compliance requirements for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP. First, for all sources, we are finalizing a requirement that initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, and performance test results be electronically submitted. Next, the EPA is finalizing changing the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods. For new or significantly modified sources, we are finalizing an option for facilities to follow new work practice standards for periods of initial startup. From our assessment of the timeframe needed for implementing the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA proposed a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable for existing affected sources or affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before June 27, 2019. No comments on the compliance period were received during the public comment period and the 180-day period is being finalized as proposed. Thus, the compliance date of the final amendments for all existing sources and new sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before June 27, 2019, will be September 15, 2020. The compliance date of the final amendments for new sources that commence construction or reconstruction after June 27, 2019, will be March 18, 2020. IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category? For each issue, this section provides a description of what we proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA’s rationale for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries, and the EPA’s responses can be found in the comment summary and response document, Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for Solvent Extraction For Vegetable Oil Production, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking. A. Residual Risk Review for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category 1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category? Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk review and presented the results of this review, along with our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in the June 27, 2019, proposed rule for 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG (84 FR 30812). The results of the risk assessment for the proposal are presented briefly in Table 2 of this preamble. More detail may be found in the residual risk technical support document, Residual Risk Assessment for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking. TABLE 2—SOLVENT EXTRACTION FOR VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCTION INHALATION PROPOSED RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS Number of facilities 1 Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million) 2 Estimated population at increased risk of cancer ≥1-in-1 million Estimated annual cancer incidence (cases per year) 88 .................................... Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 3 Based on Actual Emissions Level <1 0 0.00005 0.7 (n-hexane) .......................................... HQREL = 0.7 (acrolein) jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Based on Allowable Emissions Level <1 0 0.0002 2 (n-hexane) ............................................. N/A 1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category. target organ with the highest target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category is the nervous system (neurocognitive and neurobehavioral effects). 2 Maximum 3 The VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations The results of the proposed inhalation risk assessment using actual emissions data, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate the estimated cancer maximum individual risk (MIR) is less than 1-in-1 million. At proposal, the total estimated cancer incidence from this source category was estimated to be 0.00005 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 20,000 years and for allowable emissions was 0.0002 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 5,000 years driven by emissions of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. At proposal, the maximum modeled chronic noncancer TOSHI for the source category based on actual emissions was estimated to be 0.7 and, for allowable emissions, was estimated to be 2 due to emissions of n-hexane. Approximately 13 people were estimated to have exposures resulting in a TOSHI greater than 1 if exposed to allowable emissions from this source category. As shown in Table 2 of this preamble, the worst-case acute hazard quotient (HQ) (based on the reference exposure level (REL)) at proposal was less than 1 (0.7 based on the REL for acrolein). This value is the highest HQ that is outside facility boundaries. The multipathway risk screening assessment did not identify emissions of any HAP known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment; therefore, no further evaluation of multipathway risk was conducted for this source category. Further, because we did not identify environmental HAP emissions, no quantitative environmental risk screening was conducted for this source category. We conducted an assessment of facility-wide risks. The maximum lifetime individual cancer risk posed by the 88 facilities, based on facility-wide emissions at proposal, was 5-in-1 million with cadmium, nickel, arsenic, chromium (VI), and formaldehyde emissions from facility-wide external combustion boilers driving the risk. The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI posed by facility-wide emissions was estimated to be 0.7 (for the nervous system) driven by source category nhexane emissions. We weighed all health risk factors, including those shown in Table 2 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability determination and proposed that the risks from the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category are acceptable (section IV.C.1 of proposal preamble, 84 FR 30812, June 27, 2019). We then considered whether the existing MACT standards for this source category provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 whether, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, standards are required to prevent an adverse environmental effect. In considering whether standards are required to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, we considered the same risk factors that we considered for our acceptability determination and also considered the costs, technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to emissions control options that might reduce risk associated with emissions from the source category. We proposed that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and revision of the standards for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category are not required to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. We also proposed that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect (see section IV.B of proposal preamble, 84 FR 30812, June 27, 2019.) 2. How did the risk review change for the Solvent Extraction For Vegetable Oil Production source category? We have not changed any aspect of the risk assessment since the June 27, 2019, RTR proposal for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category. We received several comments indicating that the risk assessment (1) Improperly included emissions of acetaldehyde that are not associated with the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category, but are emitted from other facility processes; (2) overestimated actual emissions for certain facilities where the EPA assumed that reported volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions were n-hexane; and (3) overestimated allowable emissions for the source category based on the assumptions used to develop the MACT allowable-to-actual emissions multiplier. As discussed in section IV.A.3 of this preamble, the inputs and assumptions in the risk assessment at proposal are likely to overestimate the risks from the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category. However, the risks as modeled at proposal indicate that both the actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are less than 1in-1 million, well below the presumptive limit of acceptability of 100-in-1 million. The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI due to inhalation exposures is less than 1 for actual PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 15615 emissions, and 2 for MACT-allowable emissions with an estimated 13 people exposed to a TOSHI greater than 1. Although for MACT-allowable emissions, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI due to inhalation exposures is 2, we note that due to the inherent health protective nature of our risk assessment methods and the uncertainties in this assessment (i.e., the emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, and exposure estimates), our risk estimates are conservative. For example, risk estimates for allowable emissions were based on scaled-up actual emissions. At the first facility with a TOSHI value greater than 1, allowable emissions are based on permit data. At the other facility, allowable emissions are based on an allowable multiplier applied to actual emissions. Additionally, the results of the acute screening analysis showed that acute risks were below a level of concern. Because the risk assessment already shows risks from the source category are acceptable and that the existing standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, revision of the risk assessment to address the comments that our emission estimates were too high would not change the EPA’s finding that the risks from the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category are acceptable. 3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are our responses? We received comments in support of and opposed to our proposed risk assessment and determination that no revisions to the standards are warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2) for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category. Generally, the comments that were not supportive of the acceptability and ample margin of safety determinations suggested changes to the underlying risk assessment methodology. The suggested changes to the EPA’s risk assessment methodology included that the EPA should lower its presumptive limit of acceptability for cancer risks to below 100-in-1 million, include emissions outside of the source categories in question in the risk assessment, and assume that pollutants with noncancer health effects have no safe level of exposure. Other commenters asserted that the methodology for developing modeling inputs overestimated the actual or allowable emissions of certain pollutants from specific facilities, and subsequently overstated the risks from the source category. We evaluated all comments and determined that no E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 15616 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations changes regarding our risk review were needed. These comments and our specific responses can be found below and in the comment summary and response document titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production, which is available in the docket for this action. Comment: One commenter stated that the acetaldehyde emissions that were modeled for the ADM-Clinton facility were not associated with the vegetable oil process and should not have been included in the source category modeling file. The commenter stated that the EPA should correct the risk assessment by removing acetaldehyde for the ADM-Clinton facility. Response: As noted at proposal, we included acetaldehyde emissions in the modeling file for the source category with the understanding that their inclusion in the assessment would result in a conservative estimate of risk. We acknowledge that a reassessment of risk that excludes acetaldehyde emissions from the facility would result in lower facility emissions, and potentially lower the source category risks associated with acetaldehyde. Therefore, because revising the assessment by removing acetaldehyde emissions from the source category modeling file would not change the outcome of our risk determination, we are not undertaking further analysis. We note that the acetaldehyde emissions would continue to be considered as part of the facility-wide risk assessment (see 84 FR 30824) and whole facility risks. Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA overestimated actual emissions for nine facilities where the EPA assumed that 100 percent of the reported VOC emissions were emitted as n-hexane. The commenter stated that although the EPA did not identify the nine facilities, the commenter’s review indicated that actual emissions in the modeling file for several sources significantly exceeded the actual 2014 emissions of n-hexane. The commenter stated that the EPA should identify the extent to which the reported HI (0.7) may be affected by this assumption. The commenter also stated that the EPA overestimated the allowable-to-actual ratio used to estimate allowable emissions for multiple facilities. The commenter asserted that although the EPA did not identify the facilities that were used to estimate an allowable-toactual ratio, they believe, based on a review of the data, that the EPA overestimated the allowable-to-actual ratio by incorrectly assuming that nhexane emissions were equal to total VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 solvent (VOC) loss or by not accounting for the volume fraction of n-hexane in solvent. Response: As noted at proposal (84 FR 30818), the EPA assumed for certain facilities that all solvent loss reported as VOC is emitted as n-hexane. We adopted this approach where data for facility hexane emissions were unavailable or lacking, recognizing that this approach would provide the most conservative estimate of risk. Additionally, the MACT allowable emissions multiplier conservatively assumed that all loss of n-hexane in the solvent extraction process is emitted to the atmosphere (84 FR 30819). The proposed approach was adopted taking into consideration that the volume fraction of n-hexane may vary significantly within a solvent (the solvent used in vegetable oil production facilities is 100-percent VOC and may range from less than 1 percent to 88percent n-hexane). Where emissions of n-hexane or the volume fraction of nhexane were not readily available from permit materials, we conservatively assumed all solvent loss is n-hexane. Therefore, the risk assessment does likely overestimate the actual and allowable emissions for certain facilities; as noted at proposal, these conservative assumptions were adopted to account for the potential ‘‘worst-case’’ risks given that we lacked complete information on the n-hexane emissions for specific facilities. Although we acknowledge that the source category risks would be lower with the adjustments requested by the commenters, revision of the actual emissions or MACT-allowable emissions in the modeling file would not change the EPA’s conclusions regarding risk. Comment: One commenter objected to the EPA’s methodology for the acute risk assessment. The commenter stated that the risk assessment is weakened because the EPA used ‘‘reasonable worst-case’’ conditions. The commenter stated that after recognizing the need to evaluate the worst-case set of conditions, it is inherently contradictory and circular for the EPA to decide to ignore the impacts by deciding that the worst-case is not actually ‘‘reasonable.’’ Another commenter stated the assessment of risks for acute exposure is conservative. It assumes that estimated 1-hour peak emissions occur at the same time as the ‘‘reasonable worst-case’’ meteorological conditions and that an individual will be exposed at this time and under these conditions at the location of the maximum predicted impact. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Response: The EPA disagrees that our Acute Screening-Level Assessment should not be based on ‘‘reasonable worst-case’’ meteorological conditions. In developing an acute exposure scenario, we estimate 1-hour exposure concentrations through air dispersion modeling during hours of peak emissions. However, hourly emissions data are not typically available, and the exact hours of peak emissions are often unknown, making it difficult to determine the meteorological conditions to model with the peak emissions. We make assumptions about when peak hourly emissions occur. In a worst-case scenario, peak hourly emissions would occur during the 1 hour of the year with the worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., low, continuous wind speeds blowing in a specific direction). However, the probability of peak hourly emissions occurring in the same hour as the worst-case air dispersion conditions is extremely low. For example, as documented in Appendix 5 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, available in the docket for this rulemaking, conservatively the probability of these two events occurring simultaneously is about 1-in200,000 (or a 0.0005 percent chance). Instead, we use ‘‘reasonable worst-case’’ meteorological conditions. This approach strikes a balance of being health protective without overestimating acute exposures and has a reasonable probability of occurrence (conservatively, an 88-in-200,000 chance or 0.044 percent). Using the ‘‘reasonable worst-case’’ meteorological conditions, the scenario we modeled is a rare event (peak emissions would have a 0.044% chance of occuring during the same hour as the ‘‘reasonable worstcase’’ meteorology based on conservative assumptions, or a 99.956% chance of not occuring during that hour) rather than a scenario that is extremely unlikely (peak emissions would have a 0.0005% chance of occuring during the same hour as the worst-case meteorology, or a 99.9995% chance of not occuring during that hour). After review of all the comments received, we determined that no changes to the risk assessment were necessary. The comments and our specific responses can be found in the document, Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category, available in the docket for this action. E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for the risk review? As noted in our proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ‘‘a two-step standardsetting 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’’ (see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). We weigh all health risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the cancer MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum cancer TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and the risk estimation uncertainties. Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects have changed. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined that the risks from the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category are acceptable, and the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, we are not revising the standards for this source category pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) based on the residual risk review, and we are readopting the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2). jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 B. Technology Review for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category 1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category? Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we proposed to conclude that no revisions to the current MACT standards for this source category are necessary for control of n-hexane emissions from vegetable oil production facilities (sections IV.C of proposal preamble, 84 FR 30825). We did not find any developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that could be applied to solvent extraction for vegetable oil process vents and that could be used to reduce emissions from solvent extraction for vegetable oil production facilities. We also did not identify any developments in work practices, pollution prevention techniques, or process changes that could achieve VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 emission reductions from solvent extraction for vegetable oil process vents. We identified for consideration the use of a cryogenic condenser after the main vent as an add-on control option, based on a review of best available control technology analyses where such controls were previously considered. However, based on the costs and emission reductions for the proposed options, we did not find the use of a cryogenic condenser as cost effective for reducing emissions from these emission sources at solvent extraction for vegetable oil production units; and we proposed that it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards for these emission sources pursuant to 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. 2. How did the technology review change for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category? We have not changed any aspect of the technology review since the June 27, 2019, RTR proposal for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category. 3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what are our responses? We received comments in support of and opposed to the proposed determination from the technology review that no revisions were warranted under CAA section 112(d)(6). We evaluated the comments and determined that no changes regarding our determination were needed. These comments and our specific responses can be found in the comment summary and response document titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production, which is available in the docket for this action. 4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology review? We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA’s technology review and determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined that no cost-effective developments in practices, processes, or control technologies were identified in our technology review to warrant revisions to the standards. More information concerning our technology PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 15617 review, and how we evaluate cost effectiveness, can be found in the memorandum titled 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, and in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 30825). Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we are finalizing our technology review as proposed. C. SSM for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category 1. What amendments did we propose to address emissions during periods of SSM? We proposed removing and revising provisions related to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement that standards apply at all times. We proposed that the emission standards for normal operation apply at all times, except for periods of initial startup, for new or significantly modified sources as described below. We proposed alternate standards for initial startup periods for new or significantly modified sources. Specifically, we proposed that new or significantly modified 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. We also proposed that facilities establish and follow sitespecific operating ranges for temperature and vacuum for the desolventizing and oil distillation units associated with solvent recovery. New and significantly modified facilities would also continue to have the option to meet the requirements for normal operating periods in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850, in lieu of the work practice standards. We also proposed to revise the definition of ‘‘Initial startup period’’ to clarify the time at which an initial startup period ends and a normal operating period begins. We proposed to remove malfunction periods as a distinct source operating status, which previously allowed sources to exclude data collected during the ‘‘malfunction period’’ when determining compliance with the emission standards. Under the proposed rule, sources that experience an unscheduled shutdown as a result of a malfunction, continue to operate during a malfunction (including the period reasonably necessary to correct the malfunction), or start up after a shutdown resulting from a malfunction must instead meet the emission standard requirements for either a E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 15618 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 normal operating period or the work practice standards for an initial startup period (if applicable) in 40 CFR 63.2850 and Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. We also proposed to remove reference to SSM exemptions from the general duty requirements,3 to remove SSM plans, to remove references to SSM exemptions in requirements related to compliance with the standards and performance testing, and to revise recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are not consistent with the requirement that standards apply at all times. More information concerning our proposal on SSM can be found in the proposed rule (84 FR 30825, June 27, 2019). 2. How did the SSM provisions change since proposal? We are finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed, except for minor clarifications. We are finalizing the proposed alternate work practice standards for initial startup periods for new or significantly modified sources, and we are finalizing our proposal to remove malfunction periods as a source operating status, which previously allowed sources to exclude data collected during the ‘‘malfunction period’’ when calculating their compliance ratio according to 40 CFR 63.2840. We are finalizing the removal and revision of SSM requirements related to general duty, SSM plans, compliance with the standards, and performance testing as proposed (84 FR 30825). We are revising the recordkeeping requirements at 40 CFR 63.2862 and the reporting requirements at 40 CFR 63.2861 as proposed, with the exception of minor revisions to clarify how to designate the date a deviation occurred and the duration of the deviation. For deviations from the compliance ratio for facilities operating under a normal operating period, the date of the deviation is the date the compliance ratio determination is made, and the duration of the deviation is the length of time taken to address the cause of the deviation (including the duration of any malfunction) and to return the affected unit(s) to its normal or usual manner of operation. For deviations from the work practice standard for facilities operating under an initial startup period, the date of the deviation is the date when the facility fails to comply with any of the work practice standards in 40 CFR 63.2840(h), and the duration of the deviation is the length of time taken to return to the work 3 We proposed 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 (see 84 FR 30828). VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 practice standards. We have also removed the requirement to record and report the time of day the deviation occurred, since deviations from the compliance ratio are determined at the end of the period. 3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM revisions and what are our responses? We received one comment supporting our proposed removal of the exemption in the regulations for emissions during SSM periods. We received two comments supporting our proposal to establish an option to follow a work practice standard during initial startup periods for new or significantly modified sources, and did not receive any comments opposing the proposed work practice standards during initial startup periods. We received additional comments requesting that startup or shutdown periods be taken into account when setting the MACT standard. We received comments both for and against the proposed removal of ‘‘malfunction periods’’ as a distinct source operating status. We also received comments requesting clarification on the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the date, time, and duration of a deviation. We evaluated all comments and determined that no changes to the proposed alternate work practice standards for initial startup periods for new or significantly modified sources; no changes to the proposed removal of requirements that allowed sources to designate the operating status as a distinct ‘‘malfunction periods’’ (facilities must instead meet the requirements of normal operation or initial startup); and no changes to the proposed removal or revision of provisions related to SSM are required, with the exception of minor clarifications as discussed in this section. Comment: Two commenters stated that the EPA should take periods of startup and shutdown into account when setting the MACT emissions standards. The commenters stated that if the EPA is removing the exemption of startup and shutdown emissions from the calculation of the compliance ratio, the EPA should recalculate the MACT emission limits based on normal operation plus periods of startup and shutdown. The commenters stated that the EPA has indicated the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and that this indicates there is ample room to increase the MACT limits to more appropriate levels that include the startup and shutdown operations. Another commenter stated that the PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 proposed elimination of relief for SSM events is not required for the rule to be consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA. The commenter asserted that other court opinions have emphasized the need for standards to accommodate higher emission levels that occur at times other than normal operations. Response: We do not agree that the MACT emission limits should be recalculated to include periods of startup and shutdown. We disagree with the commenter’s suggestion that the legal precedent established in case law (i.e., Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008)) is not relevant. The Sierra Club decision held that emissions limitations under CAA section 112 must apply continuously and meet minimum stringency requirements, even during periods of SSM. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, for the reasons explained in the proposal preamble at 83 FR 30285, we are finalizing our proposal to eliminate the SSM language in 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG. Subpart GGGG had both rule-specific SSM language and references to SSM language in the part 63 General Provisions in Table 1 of 63.2870, specifically reference to 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1). As we explained in the proposal, our SSM-related rule revisions are in response to the Sierra Club Court’s vacatur of the SSM exemption in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1). When incorporated into CAA section 112(d) regulations for specific source categories, these two provisions exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable MACT standards during periods of SSM. The Court’s vacatur rendered those provisions null and void prior to this rulemaking. The mandate implementing the Court’s decision was issued on October 16, 2009, at which time the vacated SSM provision 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) referenced by subpart GGGG was no longer in effect. Eliminating reference to this provision, and other related General Provisions referenced in subpart GGGG, is a ministerial action by the EPA to reflect the vacatur by the Court. We also eliminated the rulespecific SSM provisions in subpart GGGG. The final standards will apply at all times, consistent with the Sierra Club decision. As an alternative approach consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA may designate different standards to apply during startup and shutdown (as noted in the proposal, the EPA is not obligated to set standards for periods of malfunction). For this category, the compliance approaches required by state regulatory authorities led us to decide special startup/shutdown standards were unnecessary for existing sources. Based E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations on discussions with industry, there are not significant differences in the production process or operation of solvent recovery equipment during startup or shutdown of an existing facility that would preclude the facility from complying with the existing standards. A review of title V permits identified that approximately 35 percent of existing facilities are already required to account for periods of routine startup (not initial startup) and shutdown in determining their compliance ratio. This requirement was found commonly across states and regions, indicating that existing sources operating during periods of routine startup and shutdown are able to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards. Furthermore, the commenter did not provide any evidence that emissions during routine startup and shutdown vary considerably from normal operation. Consequently, the final rule’s elimination of periods of startup and shutdown for existing sources reflects this capability. For the reasons explained in the proposal preamble, we are finalizing alternate standards for periods of initial startup for new or significantly modified sources. Because the initial startup period reflects a non-steady state of production, emissions testing during this period would not likely be representative or yield meaningful results for the establishment of separate emission limits. As discussed at proposal, 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 variability that is 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 necessitate 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 that requires repair or replacement. The EPA evaluated the available data for new or significantly modified sources to establish potential standards for periods of initial startup, including review of operating permits from various state and local agencies and EPA Regional offices. We noted that the standards have not previously required—and state, local, and Regional offices have not collected—emissions VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 data for these facilities during their initial startup periods. Further, where the EPA identified a recently constructed facility with permitted MACT allowable solvent loss for an initial startup period, we determined that the allowable solvent loss for the facility was not based on measured data, and 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, we did not receive sufficient information, including additional quantitative emissions data, on which to base a numeric standard for initial startup periods at new or significantly modified facilities. The EPA recognizes that the initial startup period, which is a one-time event for new sources and an infrequent event for significantly modified sources, is not a typical startup period that may occur as part of routine or seasonal startups of a plant. Instead, the initial startup period includes evaluation and replacement of new equipment as each phase is brought online and production is gradually increased. Therefore, emissions testing during initial startup would be both economically and technically infeasible. Consequently, the EPA is finalizing a work practice standard rather than an emissions limit for this period. Notwithstanding the finding that the MACT-based limits of the initial NESHAP provide and ample margin of safety, the EPA lacks the authority to relax limits developed in the MACT process based on finding that the limits provide an ample margin of safety. Were the EPA to do so, then the limits would not meet the strict structure of MACT. The risk-based limits under CAA section 112(f)(2) were intended to augment MACT when the post-MACT risks did not provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. There is no indication in the statute that the risk-based standards were intended to revoke the requirements to have MACT standards. A risk-based standard is only required when the MACT-based does not sufficiently reduce risk (see CAA section 112(f)(2)(A)). Additionally, the EPA’s finding is that the existing MACT-based standard does not need to be made more stringent to comply with CAA section 112(f)(2) (i.e., to provide an ample margin of safety). The EPA has not made a finding that the existing standards somehow exceed an ample margin of safety. There is no finding that there is ‘‘room to increase’’ the limits while also complying with the requirement to provide an ample margin of safety required by CAA section 112(f)(2). PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 15619 Comment: One commenter asserted that it would be arbitrary and capricious for the EPA to ignore the existence of malfunctions even at best-performing sources, or to assume that the bestperforming sources achieve emission levels that they do not achieve part of the time. The commenter urged that if the EPA adopts MACT standards that it recognizes even the best-performing existing sources cannot achieve part of the time, the EPA would be going beyond the MACT floor. Three commenters stated that the EPA should take malfunctions into account when adopting emissions standards. One commenter stated that it is not apparent from the proposed rule why the EPA believes it needs to remove the current provisions related to malfunctions. The commenter asserted that the EPA cannot change its position and withdraw a previously promulgated provision without providing a full explanation of the reason(s) for the change. The same commenter recommended that the EPA could instead establish numerical emission limitations that have an averaging time of sufficient duration that short, infrequent spikes in emissions due to malfunctions would not cause the source to exceed the emission limitation. Alternatively, the commenter recommended that the EPA could promulgate design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards in lieu of a numerical standard. Two commenters stated that the EPA should maintain an option in 40 CFR 63.2850(e)(2) either to meet the requirements applicable to normal operating periods or to meet the requirements for malfunction periods. These commenters urged that otherwise there could be unavoidable exceedances of the standards. The two commenters recommended that the EPA could adopt similar work practice standards for malfunction periods as proposed for initial startup periods. Another commenter suggested work practices such as monitoring of operating parameters to identify a malfunction and stopping or cutting back the process. One commenter supported the removal of the malfunction exemptions, stating there is no lawful or rational justification for creating non-numerical work practice standards during malfunctions. Response: We disagree with the commenters’ assertions that we must set revised or separate standards for periods of malfunction. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, as the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 15620 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 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 [ ] 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, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 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. As noted at proposal, the EPA considers 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. The EPA has also considered the need for a work practice for periods of malfunction for vegetable oil production facilities. Although we requested information on emissions and the operation of processes during malfunction periods in our consultations with state agencies and industry, we did not receive sufficient information for development of proposed standards. Therefore, as part of the proposal, the EPA solicited information on the type of events that constitute a malfunction event, industry best practices, and the best level of emission control during malfunction events. The EPA also requested commenters provide information on the costs associated with any recommended work practices. In addition, the EPA solicited specific supporting data on HAP emissions during malfunction events, including the cause of malfunction, the frequency of malfunction, duration of malfunction, and the estimate of HAP emitted during each malfunction. In this case, although we requested comment and information to support the development of a standard during periods of malfunction, we did not receive sufficient information, including additional quantitative emissions data, on which to base a standard. Absent sufficient information, it is not reasonable at this time to establish a work practice standard for periods of malfunction for this source category. For these reasons, we are not setting separate standards for periods of malfunction. Under the final rule, sources that experience an unscheduled shutdown as a result of a malfunction, continue to operate during a malfunction (including the period reasonably necessary to correct the malfunction), or start up after a shutdown resulting from a malfunction must instead meet the emission standard requirements for either a normal operating period or the work practice standards for an initial startup period (if a new or significantly modified source) in 40 CFR 63.2850 and Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. We note that sources must still meet the general duty requirements in 40 CFR 63.2840(g) and should address malfunctions PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 expeditiously in order to maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, and minimize emissions. Nevertheless, the EPA acknowledges that including solvent loss from a onetime event (like a malfunction) in the 12-month compliance ratio could cause a deviation for one or more monthly compliance ratio determinations, and would remain in the rolling compliance determination for up to 1 year (12 months). We also recognize that it is possible that a malfunction that causes a 12-month compliance ratio to be exceeded might have been corrected well before the first full 12-months have passed. Although a facility would need to retain records of any deviation and the corrective action(s) performed, no additional corrective action would be required at the time the 12-month compliance ratio is officially exceeded in subsequent months if the facility demonstrates the exceedance is from a prior malfunction that has been corrected. Facilities would be able to provide such an explanation in their deviation reports; specifically, we have revised the deviation reporting requirements in the final rule to include a requirement that facilities flag and provide an explanation for any deviation from the compliance ratio for which a deviation report is being submitted for more than 1 consecutive month (i.e., include a reference to the original date and reporting of the deviation) (see 40 CFR 63.2861(b)). Further, as discussed below in this section, we have clarified that the duration of the deviation from the compliance ratio is the length of time taken to address the cause of the deviation (including the duration of any malfunction) and to return the affected unit(s) to its normal or usual manner of operation. Therefore, facilities must retain records of the date and duration of the malfunction, as well as the corrective action(s) performed, to demonstrate the basis for the deviation in subsequent periods. As further explained at proposal, ‘‘[i]n the 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 preventive 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, E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 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’’ (84 FR 30828). Comment: We received one comment requesting clarification on the revised reporting and recordkeeping requirements for deviations. The commenter requested that the EPA clarify how a facility should designate the date a deviation occurred. The commenter recommended that because there is a single compliance ratio determination for an operating month, the rule should specify that a deviation be reported as occurring on the date the compliance ratio determination is made. The commenter also requested clarification on the duration of a deviation, noting that solvent loss from a one-time event (like a malfunction) could cause a deviation for one or more monthly compliance ratio determinations. The commenter stated it is unreasonable to require facilities to report events that may last only 1 day as having a duration of 30 days or even longer, and asked the EPA to clarify if the deviation reporting requirements only apply to work practice standards. Finally, the commenter stated the reporting template should not require facilities to report the time of a deviation; the commenter urged that the time of day a deviation occurs is not needed to determine compliance with the standards. Response: We agree with the commenter and have revised the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for deviations for clarification. Specifically, we have revised the recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR 63.2862(g)(1) to clarify that for deviations from the compliance ratio, the date of the deviation is the date the compliance ratio determination is made. For deviations from the work practice standard during the initial startup period, the date of the deviation is the date when the facility fails to comply with any of the work practice standard in 40 CFR 63.2840(h) (e.g., if the facility fails to operate the mineral oil absorption system or the solvent VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 condenser at all times during the initial startup period, or fails to meet the sitespecific operating limits established by the facility). These dates must be reported in the deviation notification report according to the final rule requirements at 40 CFR 63.2861(b)(5). We have revised 40 CFR 63.2862(g)(1) to clarify that for deviations from the compliance ratio, the duration of the deviation is the length of time taken to address the cause of the deviation (including the duration of any malfunction) and to return the affected unit(s) to its normal or usual manner of operation. For deviations from the work practice standard during the initial startup period, the duration of the deviation is the length of time taken to return to the work practice standards. The final rule requirements are consistent with the prior requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) to retain a record of the ‘‘occurrence and duration of each malfunction’’ and are necessary to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard. Finally, we have revised the final rule requirements to remove the requirement to record or report the time of a deviation, as this information is not necessary to determine compliance with the standard. Additional comments on the SSM provisions and our specific responses to those comments can be found in the document titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production, which is available in the docket for this action. 4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions to address emissions during periods of SSM? We evaluated all the comments on the EPA’s proposed amendments to the SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule (84 FR 30812), we determined that these amendments appropriately remove and revise provisions related to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement that the standards apply at all times. Therefore, we are finalizing the amendments to remove and revise provisions related to SSM, as proposed, with the exception of the clarifications discussed in this section. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 15621 D. Technical Amendments to the MACT Standards for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category 1. What other amendments did we propose for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category? We proposed that owners and operators submit electronic copies of initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, and performance test reports through the EPA’s CDX using the CEDRI. 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. We also proposed two broad circumstances in which we may provide extension to these requirements. We proposed at 40 CFR 63.2862(f) that an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI that precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required reports. We also proposed at 40 CFR 63.2862(g) that an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, such as an act of nature, act of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility. We proposed revisions to several definitions in 40 CFR 63.2872 to harmonize with the proposed removal of the SSM requirements and to clarify existing provisions, include revisions to definitions of ‘‘Compliance ratio,’’ ‘‘Nonoperating period,’’ ‘‘Normal operating period,’’ and ‘‘Operating month’’ to clarify where the malfunction period is excluded, and to the definition of ‘‘Normal operating period’’ to clarify that this definition also applies to ‘‘normal operation.’’ We also proposed to add a definition for ‘‘Nonoperating month.’’ We proposed to revise the definition of ‘‘Hazardous air pollutant (HAP)’’ to remove the reference to the date of April 12, 2001. We proposed 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. We also proposed a minor correction to Table 1 of 63.2850 to correct a typographical error in row ‘‘(a)’’ for malfunction periods. E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 15622 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 2. How did the other amendments for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category change since proposal? There are no changes to the proposed requirements for owners and operators to submit electronic copies of initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, and performance test reports electronically. We also are finalizing, as proposed, the provisions that allow facility operators the ability to seek extensions for submitting electronic reports for circumstances beyond the control of the facility. There are no changes to the proposed definitions in 40 CFR 63.2872, or the minor revisions to 40 CFR 63.2840(a)(1) and (b)(1), 40 CFR 63.2853(a)(2), 40 CFR 63.2855(a)(3), or Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 3. What key comments did we receive on the other amendments for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category and what are our responses? We received one comment providing input on the proposed requirement for owners and operators of vegetable oil production facilities to submit electronic copies of initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, and performance test reports. The commenter stated that the EPA may not lawfully or rationally finalize ‘‘exemption provisions’’ based on CEDRI outages or ‘‘force majeure events.’’ The commenter stated the provisions do not set a firm deadline to request an extension of the reporting deadline. No commenters provided significant comments on the proposed definitions in 40 CFR 63.2872, or the proposed minor revisions to 40 CFR 63.2840(a)(1) and (b)(1), 40 CFR 63.2853(a)(2), 40 CFR 63.2855(a)(3), or Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA must not finalize the proposed electronic reporting extension provisions because the definition of a force majeure event is too broad, the provisions do not set a firm deadline to request an extension of the reporting deadline, and the decision to allow an extension is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. The commenter urged that the proposed provisions are unlawful and arbitrary because they would create a broad and vague mechanism that a facility owner or operator could use to evade binding emission standards, by evading the binding compliance reporting deadlines set to assure compliance with those VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 standards. The commenter further stated that the EPA should not import the concept of ‘‘force majeure’’ into any part of the CAA, as to do so is a variation of the prior malfunction exemptions that are unlawful under the CAA. The commenter also noted that the EPA has provided that there are no known issues with submission of ERT-formatted performance test and evaluation reports in CEDRI (per the Petroleum Refinery NESHAP), thus, there is no rational basis for providing the proposing reporting extensions. At a minimum, the commenter requested that the EPA set a new firm deadline to assure that the extension request allows only a temporary period when the facility need not report, such as a 10-day extension, rather than an open-ended extension without a deadline. Response: The commenter states that the brief case-by-case extension of report submittal deadlines is a ‘‘reporting exemption.’’ This is not the case. The proposed provisions the commenter questions are in paragraphs 40 CFR 63.2861(h) and (i). There is no exception or exemption to reporting, much less an exemption from compliance with the numerical emission standards, only a method for requesting an extension of the reporting deadline. Reporters are required to justify their request and identify a reporting date. There is no predetermined timeframe for the length of extension that can be granted, as this is something best determined by the Administrator (i.e., the EPA Administrator or delegated authority as defined in 40 CFR 63.2) when reviewing the circumstances surrounding the request. Different circumstances may require a different length of extension for electronic reporting. For example, a tropical storm may delay electronic reporting for a day, but a Hurricane Katrina scale event may delay electronic reporting much longer, especially if the facility has no power, and as such, the owner or operator has no ability to access electronically stored data or to submit reports electronically. The Administrator will be the most knowledgeable of the events leading to the request for extension and will assess whether an extension is appropriate, and if so, a reasonable length for the extension. The Administrator may even request that the report be sent in hardcopy until electronic reporting can be resumed. While no new fixed duration deadline is set, the regulation requires that the report be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the CEDRI outage or after the force majeure event resolves. PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 The concept of force majeure has been implemented by the EPA in this context since May 2007 within the CAA requirements through the performance test extensions provided in 40 CFR 63.7(a)(4) and 60.8(a)(1). Like the performance test extensions, the approval of a requested extension of an electronic reporting deadline is at the discretion of the Administrator. The EPA disagrees that the ability to request a reporting extension ‘‘would create a broad and vague mechanism’’ that owners and operators ‘‘could use to evade binding emissions standards’’ or evade ‘‘binding compliance reporting deadlines’’ for emissions standards. While reporting is an important mechanism for the EPA and air agencies to assess whether owners and operators are in compliance with emissions standards, reporting obligations are separate from (i.e., in addition to) requirements that an owner or operator be in compliance with an emissions standard, especially where the deadline for meeting the standard has already passed and the owner or operator has certified and is monitoring operations to show that they are in compliance with the standard. The commenter references deadlines set forth in the CAA for demonstrating initial compliance following the effective date of emission standards, which differs from deadlines for submitting reports. There are no such deadlines stated in the CAA for report due dates, meaning the EPA has discretion to establish reporting schedules, and also discretion to allow a mechanism for extension of those schedules on a case-by-case basis. In fact, under the commenter’s reasoning, if the statutory deadlines for compliance with standards were read to strictly apply to continuing reporting requirements, no such reporting could be required after 3 years from the promulgation of the standards. This would not be a reasonable result. Reporting deadlines are often different from compliance deadlines. Rules under 40 CFR part 60 and 63 typically allow months following an initial compliance deadline to conduct testing and submit reports, but compliance with standards is required upon the compliance date. Additionally, the ability to request a reporting extension does not apply to a broad category of circumstances; on the contrary, the scope for submitting an extension request for an electronic report is very limited in that claims can only be made for an event outside of the owner’s or operator’s control that occurs in the five business days prior to the reporting deadline. The claim must then be approved by the Administrator, and in approving such a claim, the E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations Administrator agrees that something outside the control of the owner or operator prevented the owner or operator from meeting its reporting obligation. In no circumstance does this electronic reporting extension allow for the owner or operator to be out of compliance with the underlying emissions standards. If the Administrator determines that a facility has not acted in good faith to reasonably report in a timely manner, the Administrator can reject the claim and find that the failure to report timely is a deviation from the regulation. CEDRI system outages are infrequent, but the EPA knows when they occur and whether a facility’s claim is legitimate. Force majeure events (e.g., natural disasters impacting a facility) are also usually well-known events. Finally, EPA disagrees that the existing statistics on the use of CEDRI and e-reporting precludes the need for a provision to account for an outage of the CEDRI system. Prudent management of electronic data systems builds in allowances for unexpected, non-routine delays, such as occurred on July 1, 2016 and October 20–23, 2017, and is consistent with the already-existing provisions afforded for unexpected, non-routine delays in performance testing [see 40 CFR 60.8(a)(1) and (2) and 40 CFR 63.7(a)(4)]. For both electronic reporting and performance testing, owners or operators are to conduct and complete their activities within a short window of time; the EPA believes it is prudent to allow owners or operators to make force majeure claims for situations beyond their reasonable control. The EPA also disagrees that incidental issues with questions on completing the form or the procedures for accessing CEDRI for which the CEDRI Helpdesk is available, are conditions that would be considered either force majeure or a CEDRI system outage. The existence of the Helpdesk for answering questions on procedures in submitting reports to CEDRI have no impact on the availability of CEDRI in such a circumstance. The purpose of these requests for extensions are to accommodate owners and operators in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report electronically for reasons that are beyond their control and occur during a short window of time prior to the reporting deadline. The extension is not automatic, and the Administrator retains the right to accept or reject the request. The language was added as part of the standard electronic reporting language based on numerous comments received on the proposal for the Electronic Reporting and VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 Recordkeeping Requirements for the New Source Performance Standards (80 FR 15100). As such, we have determined that no changes to the electronic reporting requirements are necessary in the final rule. Additional comments on the proposed electronic reporting requirements and other amendments and our specific responses to those comments can be found in the memorandum titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production, available in the docket for this action. 4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for the other amendments for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category? We evaluated the comment on the EPA’s proposed amendments to require electronic reporting initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, and performance test reports. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined that these amendments increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility. More information concerning the proposed requirement for owners and operators of vegetable oil production facilities to submit electronic copies of certain notifications and reports is in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 30830, June 27, 2019) and the document, Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production, available in the docket for this action. Therefore, we are finalizing our approach for submission of initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, and performance test reports as proposed. V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted A. What are the affected facilities? 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 final amendments. The basis of our estimate of affected facilities is 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. We additionally anticipate one new PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 15623 source per year. The EPA received comment on the proposed rule that some larger facilities may have significant modifications about once a year, therefore, we assume that eight existing vegetable oil production facilities may have a significant modification that could meet the revised requirements for initial startup periods. 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.4 Because the EPA is not revising the emission limits, we do not anticipate any quantifiable air quality impacts as a result of these amendments. However, we anticipate that the final requirements, including the work practice standards for the optional initial startup period, are at least as stringent as the current rule requirements. The work practice standards include requirements for facilities to operate controls, including the mineral oil absorption system and solvent condensers, at all times during the initial startup period. Facilities must also establish and follow site-specific operating ranges for temperature and vacuum for the desolventizing and oil distillation units associated with solvent recovery. We anticipate these requirements will minimize emissions during these periods. C. What are the cost impacts? The 89 vegetable oil production facilities that would be subject to the final amendments, and one additional new source per year, 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 costs associated with the final requirements are estimated to total $93,100 over the 3 years following promulgation of amendments (or $31,033 per year). The EPA believes that the vegetable oil production facilities that are known to be subject to the NESHAP can meet the final requirements without incurring additional capital or operational costs. Therefore, the only costs associated with the final amendments include a one-time burden for reviewing requirements of the amended rule, and a one-time burden associated with recordkeeping and reporting labor costs for initial startup periods for new, reconstructed, or significantly modified 4 The annual HAP emission estimates include emissions from 88 facilities. Annual emissions are not yet available for one newly constructed facility. E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 15624 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations facilities. The EPA assumed in the proposed rule that one potential new or reconstructed vegetable oil production facility would be subject to the revised requirements for initial startup periods each year. However, we received comment on the proposed rule that some larger facilities may have significant modifications about once a year. Therefore, we have revised the costs associated with the final rule to assume that approximately eight existing vegetable oil production facilities (or approximately 10 percent of existing facilities) may have a significant modification that could require that they meet the revised requirements for initial startup periods. The revised assumption results in an increase in the total nationwide annual costs associated with the final requirements to account for the additional facilities anticipated to have a significant modification (actual costs per facility have not changed). For further information on the costs and cost savings associated with the final requirements, see the memorandum, Cost for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category Risk and Technology Review— Final 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. E. What are the benefits? D. What are the economic impacts? As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, 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 kilometers (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. When examining the risk levels of those exposed to emissions from solvent extraction for vegetable oil production facilities, we found that no one is exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of the preamble to the proposed rule and the technical report titled Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Solvent Extraction for 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 final 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 final rule. The total costs associated with the final rule are estimated to be $93,100 (or $31,033 per year) for the 3 years following the final rule. This includes a one-time burden for reviewing requirements of the amended rule, and a one-time burden associated with the recordkeeping and reporting for initial startup periods for new, reconstructed, or significantly modified facilities. This is an estimated average cost of approximately $345 per year 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 Although the EPA does not anticipate quantifiable reductions in HAP emissions as a result of the final amendments, we believe that the action will result in improvements to the rule. Specifically, the final amendments revise the standards such that they apply at all times. For facilities that choose to operate under an initial startup period, the EPA is finalizing an alternative work practice standard that will ensure that facilities are operating controls and minimizing emissions while the source operates under nonsteady state production, which we expect will protect public health and the environment through better compliance during these periods. Additionally, the final amendments requiring electronic submittal of initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, and performance test results will streamline reporting for affected sources, increase the usefulness of the data and improve data accessibility for the public, 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 the preamble to the proposed rule for more information. F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct? PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Vegetable Oil Production, which is available in the docket for this action. G. What analysis of children’s environmental health did we conduct? 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 summarized in section IV.A of this preamble and are further documented in the risk report, Residual Risk Assessment for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, available in the docket for this action. VI. 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 Orders 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 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs This action is not 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 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 1947.09. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. The EPA is finalizing amendments that revise provisions pertaining to emissions during periods of SSM; add requirements for electronic reporting of certain notifications and reports and performance test results; and make other minor clarifications and corrections. This information will be collected to assure compliance with the Solvent E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP. Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of vegetable oil production processes. 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 34,100 hours. Of these, 448 hours (per year) is the incremental burden to comply with the final 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 $3,490,000 (per year), including $0 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. Of the total, $31,033 (per year) is the incremental cost to comply with the final amendments to the rule, or approximately $345 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. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection activities contained in this final rule. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 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 final rule, may experience an impact of less than 1 percent of revenues. See section V.D of this preamble for additional information on the economic impacts of this action. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 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. None of the solvent extraction for vegetable oil production facilities that have been identified as being affected by this final action are owned or operated by tribal governments or located within tribal lands. 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 the EPA does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action’s health and risk assessments are contained in sections IV.A of this preamble and the document, Residual Risk Assessment for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking. 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 rulemaking involves technical standards. As discussed in the preamble of the proposal, the EPA conducted searches for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Sector Risk PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 15625 and Technology Review through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network Database managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 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 D6438 (1999), CARB Method 310)) 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, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of this preamble and in the technical report, Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Vegetable Oil Production Facilities, available in the docket for this action. L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 15626 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations Dated: February 25, 2020. Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA is amending 40 CFR part 63 as follows: PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES Subpart GGGG—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: ■ ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 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? * * * * * TABLE 1 OF § 63.2834—COMPLIANCE DATES FOR EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES If your affected source is categorized as . . . (a) an existing source ....... (b) a new source ............... (c) a new source ............... (d) a new source ............... And if . . . you startup your affected source before April 12, 2001. you startup your affected source on or after April 12, 2001, but before March 18, 2020. you startup your affected source on or after March 18, 2020. 3. Section 63.2840 is amended by: a. Revising the introductory text and paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text and (b) introductory text; ■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(1); ■ c Revising paragraphs (b)(3) through (5); and ■ d. Adding paragraphs (g) and (h). The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ ■ jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 § 63.2840 What emission requirements must I meet? For each facility meeting the applicability criteria in § 63.2832, you must comply with either the requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d), 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 § 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: * * * * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 Then your compliance date is . . . 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 . . . April 12, 2004 ................... April 12, 2004 ................... September 15, 2020. September 15, 2020. your startup date .............. September 15, 2020. your startup date .............. your startup date. (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 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 September 15, 2020, 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 September 15, 2020. * * * * * (g) On or after September 15, 2020, you must operate and maintain any PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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 September 15, 2020, 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 E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations (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. ■ 4. Section 63.2850 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(3) and paragraph (a)(5) introductory text; ■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(iv); ■ c. Revising paragraphs (b), (c)(1) and (2), (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 September 15, 2020, 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 September 15, 2020, 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 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 September 15, 2020, you must also comply with the work practice standard 15627 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 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 September 15, 2020. * * * * * (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: jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 TABLE 1 OF § 63.2850—REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH HAP EMISSION STANDARDS Are you required to . . . For periods of normal operation? a For initial startup periods subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2)? Before September 15, 2020, for malfunction periods subject to § 63.2850(e)(2)? a (a)(1) Operate and maintain your source in accordance with general duty provisions of § 63.6(e) before September 15, 2020? 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. 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 15628 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 TABLE 1 OF § 63.2850—REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH HAP EMISSION STANDARDS—Continued Before September 15, 2020, 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)(2) Operate and maintain your source in accordance with general duty provisions of § 63.6(e) on and after September 15, 2020? (b) Determine and record the extraction solvent loss in gallons from your source? No, you must meet the requirements of § 63.2840(g). Additionally, the HAP emission limits will apply. No, you must meet the requirements of § 63.2840(g). Yes, as described in § 63.2853 .. 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 September 15, 2020) and § 63.2862(f) (on and after September 15, 2020). 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 malfunction period. (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 September 15, 2020? (h)(2) Submit a Deviation Notification Report as described in § 63.2861(b) on and after September 15, 2020? (i) Submit a Periodic SSM Report as described in § 63.2861(c)? (j) Submit an Immediate SSM Report as described in § 63.2861(d)? (k) Submit an Initial Startup Report as described in § 63.2861(e) on and after September 15, 2020? Yes .............................................. 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, these requirements are not applicable because your source is not required to determine the compliance ratio with data recorded for an initial startup period. Yes, as described in §§ 63.2860(d) and 63.2861(a). Yes. No, these requirements are not applicable because your source is not required to determine the compliance ratio with data recorded for a malfunction 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. No, a SSM activity is not categorized as normal operation. Yes, before September 15, 2020 Yes. Yes, only before September 15, 2020 and if your source does not follow the SSM plan. Yes ................................................ Yes, only if your source does not follow the SSM plan. No ............................................... No. a Beginning on September 15, 2020, 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 September 15, 2020. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 5. Section 63.2851 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text and adding paragraph (a)(8) to read as follows: ■ § 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 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 September 15, 2020, 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 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 September 15, 2020, 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 15629 pollution control equipment and reflect the best practices now in use by the industry to minimize emissions. Some 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 September 15, 2020. ■ 7. Section 63.2853 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(2) introductory text; ■ b. Revising the heading for Table 1 of § 63.2853 in paragraph (a)(2); ■ c. Adding Table 2 of § 63.2853(a)(2) to paragraph (a)(2); and ■ d. Revising paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(5)(i), and (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(a)(2)—CATEGORIZING YOUR SOURCE OPERATING STATUS BEFORE SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 * * * * * jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 TABLE 2 OF § 63.2853(a)(2)—CATEGORIZING YOUR SOURCE OPERATING STATUS ON AND AFTER SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 If during a recorded time interval . . . Then your source operating status is . . . (vi) 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). (vii) 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). (viii) You choose to operate your source under an initial startup period subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2) .. (ix) 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 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) * * * PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 A nonoperating period. An initial startup period. An exempt period. (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 E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 15630 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 September 15, 2020, 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. * * * * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 (3) Before September 15, 2020, 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 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 September 15, 2020, 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 * * * * * (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 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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 September 15, 2020, the number of deviations and for each deviation the date and duration of each deviation. Flag and provide an explanation for any deviation from the compliance ratio for which a deviation report is being submitted for more than one consecutive month (i.e., include a reference to the original date and reporting of the deviation). If the explanation provides that corrective actions have returned the affected unit(s) to its normal operation, you are not required to include the items in paragraphs (b)(6) and (7) of this section. (6) Beginning on September 15, 2020, a statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). (7) Beginning on September 15, 2020, for each deviation, a 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 September 15, 2020, 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 September 15, 2020. * * * * * (d) Immediate SSM reports. Before September 15, 2020, 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 E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 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 September 15, 2020. * * * * * (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 September 15, 2020, 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 § 63.2840(h). (f) Performance tests. On and after September 15, 2020, 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 (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) Submitting reports electronically. On and after September 15, 2020, 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 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) Claims of EPA system outage. If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in EPA’s PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 15631 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) Claims of force majeure. 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 E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 15632 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 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. ■ 10. Section 63.2862 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (b) and paragraph (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? jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 * * * * * (b) Before September 15, 2020, 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 September 15, 2020, the requirement to prepare a SSM plan no longer applies, and the plan for demonstrating compliance must only describe the procedures you develop VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 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, 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 September 15, 2020, 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 September 15, 2020. * * * * * (f) On and after September 15, 2020, 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. PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 (6) Information to indicate the solvent condensers were operating at all times during the initial startup period. (g) On and after September 15, 2020, 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 and duration of each deviation. For deviations from the compliance ratio, the date of the deviation is the date the compliance ratio determination is made. The duration of the deviation from the compliance ratio is the length of time taken to address the cause of the deviation, including the duration of any malfunction, and return the affected unit(s) to its normal or usual manner of operation. For deviations from the work practice standard during the initial startup period, the date of the deviation is the date(s) when the facility fails to comply with any of the work practice standard in § 63.2840(h). The duration of the deviation from the work practice standard is the length of time taken to return to the work practice standards. (2) A statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). (3) 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. (4) 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. (5) 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? * E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM * * 18MRR3 * * Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 15633 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. [Reserved]. Application for approval. 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 subsections of § 63.5 as listed below. Type and quantity of HAP, operating parameters. No ............................. All sources emit HAP. Subpart GGGG does not require control from specific emission points. Application for approval. 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 subsections of § 63.6 as listed below. Section 63.2834 of subpart GGGG specifies the compliance dates for new and reconstructed sources. § 63.5(c) .............................. § 63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H) ................. Yes ........................... § 63.6 .................................. Applicability of General Provisions. Compliance dates, new and reconstructed sources. [Reserved]. [Reserved]. [Reserved]. Operation and Maintenance. Applicability .............. Yes ........................... .................................. No ............................. .................................. § 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). § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) ..................... Operation and maintenance requirements. .................................. Yes, before September 15, 2020. No, on or after September 15, 2020. Yes, before September 15, 2020]. No, on or after September 15, 2020. Yes, before September 15, 2020. Operation and maintenance requirements. .................................. No ............................. § 63.6(e)(3)(iv) ..................... Operation and maintenance requirements. .................................. No ............................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Except as specifically provided in this subpart. Yes. [Reserved]. § 63.6(b)(6) .......................... § 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ................... § 63.6(d) .............................. § 63.6(e)(1)(i) ...................... Explanation Yes. § 63.5(d)(1)(ii)(I) .................. § 63.5(d)(1)(iii), (d)(2), (d)(3)(ii). § 63.6(b)(1)–(3) ................... jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Applies to subpart Sfmt 4700 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 September 15, 2020, see § 63.2840(g) for general duty requirement. Minimize emissions to the extent practicable. On or after September 15, 2020, see § 63.2840(g) for general duty requirement. Report SSM and in accordance with § 63.2861(c) and (d). E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 15634 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 63.6(e)(3)(viii) ................... Operation and maintenance requirements. .................................. § 63.6(e)(3)(ix) ..................... Title V permit ............ .................................. § 63.6(f)(1) ........................... Compliance with nonopacity emission standards except during SSM. Comply with emission standards at all times except during SSM. § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) .................... Methods for Deter.................................. mining Compliance. Use of an Alternative .................................. Standard. Opacity/Visible emis.................................. sion (VE) standards. Compliance extenProcedures and crision. teria for responsible agency to grant compliance extension. Presidential compliPresident may exance exemption. empt source category from requirement to comply with subpart. Performance testing Representative conrequirements. ditions for performance test. § 63.6(g) .............................. § 63.6(h) .............................. § 63.6(i) ............................... § 63.6(j) ............................... § 63.7(e)(1) .......................... Yes, before September 15, 2020. No, on or after September 15, 2020. Yes, before September 15, 2020. No, on or after September 15, 2020. Yes, before September 15, 2020. No, on or after September 15, 2020. Yes. No ............................. Yes, before September 15, 2020. No, on or after September 15, 2020. Yes ........................... § 63.8 .................................. Monitoring requirements. Notification requirements. Notification requirements. .................................. No ............................. Applicability and state delegation. Initial notification requirements for existing sources. Notification requirement for certain new/reconstructed sources. Notify responsible agency 60 days ahead. Notify responsible agency 30 days ahead. Notification of performance evaluation; Notification using COMS data; notification that exceeded criterion for relative accuracy. Yes ........................... Notification requirements. § 63.9(e) .............................. Notification of performance test. § 63.9(f) ............................... Notification of VE/ opacity observations. Additional notifications when using a continuous monitoring system (CMS). § 63.9(g) .............................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Subpart GGGG has no opacity or VE standards. Yes.. Schedule, conditions, notifications and procedures. § 63.9(b)(3)–(5) ................... Except, before September 15, 2020, 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). Yes.. Performance testing requirements. § 63.9(b)(2) .......................... Explanation Yes. § 63.7(e)(2)–(4), (f), (g), and (h). § 63.9 .................................. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Applies to subpart No ............................. Yes ........................... See § 63.2853(a)(5)(i)(A) for performance testing requirements. 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 subsections of § 63.9 as listed below. 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. Yes ........................... Applies only if performance testing is performed. No ............................. Subpart GGGG has no opacity or VE standards. No ............................. Subpart GGGG has no CMS requirements. Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 15635 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 § 63.9(h) .............................. Notification of compliance status. Contents ................... No ............................. § 63.10 ................................ Schedule for reporting, record storage. Record SSM event ... Yes ........................... § 63.10(b)(2)(i) .................... Recordkeeping/reporting. Recordkeeping ......... § 63.10(b)(2)(ii)–(iii) ............. Recordkeeping ......... Malfunction of air pollution equipment. No ............................. Section 63.2860(d) of subpart GGGG specifies requirements for the notification of compliance status. Except for subsections of § 63.10 as listed below. Before September 15, 2020, applicable to periods when sources must implement their SSM plan as specified in subpart GGGG. On or after September 15, 2020, meet the requirements of § 63.2862(f). Before September 15, 2020, 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 September 15, 2020, meet the requirements of § 63.2862(g). § 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ............ Recordkeeping ......... SSM recordkeeping § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) ................... Recordkeeping ......... CMS recordkeeping Yes, before September 15, 2020. No, on or after September 15, 2020. No ............................. § 63.10(b)(2)(viii)–(ix) .......... Recordkeeping ......... Conditions of performance test. Yes ........................... § 63.10(b)(2)(x)–(xii) ............ Recordkeeping ......... No ............................. § 63.10(c) ............................ Recordkeeping ......... No ............................. Subpart GGGG does not require CMS. § 63.10(d)(2) ........................ Reporting .................. Yes ........................... § 63.10(d)(3) ........................ Reporting .................. § 63.10(d)(4) ........................ Reporting .................. CMS, performance testing, and opacity and VE observations recordkeeping. Additional CMS recordkeeping. Reporting performance test results. Reporting opacity or VE observations. Progress reports ...... 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. § 63.10(d)(5) ........................ Reporting .................. SSM reporting .......... No ............................. § 63.10(e) ............................ Reporting .................. No ............................. § 63.11 ................................ Control device requirements. Additional CMS reports. Requirements for flares. 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. § 63.12 ................................ State authority and delegations. State/regional addresses. State authority to enforce standards. Addresses where reports, notifications, and requests are sent. Test methods incorporated by reference. Public and confidential information. Yes. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 § 63.13 ................................ § 63.14 ................................ Incorporation by reference. § 63.15 ................................ Availability of information and confidentiality. 12. Section 63.2872 is amended in paragraph (c) by: ■ a. Revising the definitions for ‘‘Compliance ratio’’, ‘‘Hazardous air pollutant (HAP)’’, ‘‘Initial startup period’’, and ‘‘Malfunction period’’; ■ VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 Yes, before September 15, 2020. No, on or after September 15, 2020. No ............................. Yes ........................... Yes ........................... Yes. Yes. Yes. b. Adding a definition in alphabetical order for ‘‘Nonoperating month’’; and ■ c. Revising the definitions of ‘‘Normal operating period’’ and ‘‘Operating month’’. ■ PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Applies only if your source uses a flare to control solvent emissions. Subpart GGGG does not require flares. Sfmt 4700 The revisions and addition read as follows: § 63.2872 subpart? * E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM * What definitions apply to this * 18MRR3 * * 15636 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 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 September 15, 2020, 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. * * * * * 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 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 which a source processes no agricultural product. Nonoperating period means any period of time in which a source processes no agricultural product. This PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 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 September 15, 2020, 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 September 15, 2020, 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 September 15, 2020, 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. 2020–04459 Filed 3–17–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 18, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15608-15636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04459]



[[Page 15607]]

Vol. 85

Wednesday,

No. 53

March 18, 2020

Part III





 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; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 15608]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0208; FRL-10006-06-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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
(RTR) conducted for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production 
source category regulated under national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). Based on the results of the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) risk review, the Agency is 
finalizing the decision that risks due to emissions of air toxics from 
this source category are acceptable and that the current NESHAP 
provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Under the 
technology review, the EPA is finalizing the decision that there are no 
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that 
necessitate revision of the standards. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing 
no revisions to the numerical emission limits based on the risk and 
technology reviews. We are taking final action to correct and clarify 
regulatory provisions related to emissions during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), including removing general exemptions 
for periods of SSM, adding alternative work practice standards for 
periods of initial startup for new or significantly modified sources, 
and making other minor clarifications or corrections. The EPA is also 
taking final action to add provisions for electronic reporting of 
certain notifications and reports and performance test results; and 
make other minor clarifications and corrections. These final amendments 
will result in improved compliance and implementation of the rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0208. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at 
the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of 
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), 
Monday through Friday. 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final 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 
Mr. 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 information about the applicability 
of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Ms. 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: 
    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:

CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
ICR Information Collection Request
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
the Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS voluntary consensus standards

    Background information. On June 27, 2019, the EPA proposed 
revisions to the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP 
in conjunction with our RTR for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable 
Oil Production source category (84 FR 30812). In this action, we are 
finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize some of 
the more significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed 
rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other 
public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those 
comments is available in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses 
for the Risk and Technology Review for Solvent Extraction For Vegetable 
Oil Production, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0208. A ``track 
changes'' version of the regulatory language that incorporates the 
changes in this action is available in the docket.
    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?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production 
source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from 
the source category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the Solvent Extraction for 
Vegetable Oil Production source category in our June 27, 2019, RTR 
proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review 
for the Solvent

[[Page 15609]]

Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
review for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production 
source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions 
during periods of SSM?
    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable 
Oil Production Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable 
Oil Production Source Category
    C. SSM for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production 
Source Category
    D. Technical amendments to the MACT standards for the Solvent 
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    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?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we 
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 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
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

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

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To 
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the 
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, 
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

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 final action will also be available on the internet. Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this 
final 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 and key technical documents at this same 
website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information 
includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites 
for the RTR source categories.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the Court) by May 18, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to 
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person 
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public 
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for 
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and 
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. 
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a 
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate 
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460.

[[Page 15610]]

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary 
sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources 
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then 
promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' 
are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a 
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly 
referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards 
and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP 
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT 
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the 
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques, 
including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume of or 
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of 
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to 
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from 
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, 
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination 
of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor 
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations (see 
CAA section 112(d)(3)). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can 
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 
standards, we must also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish 
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of 
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the 
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the 
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology 
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them 
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk 
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after 
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, 
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The 
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of 
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In 
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the 
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to 
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority 
for this rule, see 84 FR 30812, June 27, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA 
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based 
standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is 
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk 
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source 
category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source 
category?

    The EPA promulgated the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil 
Production NESHAP on April 12, 2001 (66 FR 19006). The standards are 
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 source category 
covered by this MACT standard currently includes 89 facilities.
    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 irritation, dizziness, headaches, and nausea. Long-
term exposure can cause permanent nerve damage.
    The current NESHAP controls 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 or equal to 
1.00 (i.e., the actual HAP loss is no greater 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. Facilities may also adjust 
their solvent loss to account for cases where solvent is routed through 
a closed vent system

[[Page 15611]]

to a control device that is used to reduce emissions to meet the 
standard.

C. What changes did we propose for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable 
Oil Production source category in our June 27, 2019, RTR proposal?

    On June 27, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production 
NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG, that took into consideration the 
RTR analyses. In the proposed rule, we proposed that the risks from the 
source category are acceptable and the current standards provide an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health. In addition, pursuant 
to the technology review for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil 
Production source category, we proposed no revisions to the current 
standards based on these analyses.
    We proposed revisions to the SSM provisions of the standards to 
ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club 
v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 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. We therefore proposed that the standards 
would apply at all times, including during startups, shutdowns, and 
malfunctions (see 40 CFR 63.2840(a) and Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870 
(General Provisions Applicability Table). Additionally, we proposed to 
remove requirements that allowed sources to previously designate a 
source operating status period as a ``malfunction period'' and exclude 
data collected during the ``malfunction period'' when determining 
compliance with the emission standards.\2\ Under the proposed rule, 
sources that continue to operate must instead meet the emission 
standard requirements for either a normal operating period or the work 
practice standards for an initial startup period (if applicable) in 40 
CFR 63.2850 and Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. In proposing the revised 
standards, the EPA considered whether to set separate standards for 
startup and shutdown periods, but only found that separate standards 
were necessary for initial startup periods for new or significantly 
modified sources. For periods of initial startup following new 
construction or significant modification, we proposed work practice 
standards and a requirement to establish and follow site-specific 
operating ranges for temperature and vacuum for the desolventizing and 
oil distillation units associated with solvent recovery, as well as 
associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements (e.g., initial 
startup report) for these periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The 2001 NESHAP allowed for facilities to determine 
compliance based on the distinct categorized operating status of the 
facility (normal operating, nonoperating, initial startup, 
malfunction, or exempt) during a compliance period, as defined in 
Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2853. Existing and new sources operating during 
a malfunction period could either meet the compliance requirements 
for normal operation periods in 40 CFR 63.2850 and Table 1 of 40 CFR 
63.2850 or the requirements for malfunction periods subject to 40 
CFR 63.2850(e)(2) and Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850 (for which no limits 
or work practices applied). Sources operating during a malfunction 
period were not required to determine compliance using data recorded 
for the malfunction period. We proposed to remove the option for 
facilities to categorize the operating period as a malfunction 
period and to remove the option to meet the requirements for 
malfunction periods subject to 40 CFR 63.2850(e)(2) and Table 1 of 
40 CFR 63.2850, such that the standards apply at all times. Sources 
that continue to operate during a malfunction must continue to meet 
the general duty requirements at 40 CFR 63.2840(g). The term 
``malfunction period'' is retained in the rule only as it applies to 
facilities prior to September 15, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to require electronic reporting 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). We also proposed minor 
clarifications and corrections to five definitions (i.e., ``Compliance 
ratio,'' ``Nonoperating period,'' ``Normal operating period,'' 
``Operating month,'' and ``Hazardous air pollutant (HAP)'') and to 40 
CFR 63.2840(a)(1) and (b)(1), 40 CFR 63.2853(a)(2), 40 CFR 
63.2855(a)(3), and Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. Refer to section IV.D of 
the June 27, 2019, proposal preamble for further discussion of these 
proposed amendments and the EPA's rationale for these changes (84 FR 
60825).

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR 
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable 
Oil Production source category. This action also finalizes other 
changes to the NESHAP, including 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 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 
provisions for electronic reporting of initial notifications, initial 
startup reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, 
and performance test reports; and other minor editorial and technical 
changes. This action reflects several changes to the proposed rule in 
consideration of comments received during the public comment period as 
described in section IV of this preamble.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the 
Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category?

    This section describes the final risk determination for the Solvent 
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP being promulgated 
pursuant to CAA section 112(f). The EPA proposed no changes to the 
Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP based on the 
risk review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In this action, 
we are finalizing our proposed determination that risks from this 
source category are acceptable, and that the standards provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. Section IV.A.3 of this preamble provides a 
summary of key comments we received regarding the risk review and our 
responses to those comments.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review 
for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source 
category?

    The EPA is finalizing the technology review as proposed. We 
determined that there are no developments in practices, processes, and 
control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for 
this source category. Therefore, we are not finalizing revisions to the 
MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during 
periods of SSM?

    We are finalizing the proposed amendments to the Solvent Extraction 
for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP to remove and revise provisions 
related to SSM. As detailed in section IV.D of the proposal preamble 
(84 FR 30825), the final amendments to the Solvent Extraction for 
Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP require that the standards apply at all 
times (see 40 CFR 63.2840(a) and Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870 (General 
Provisions applicability table), consistent with the Court decision in 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    We are finalizing that the emission standards for normal operation 
apply at all times, except for periods of initial

[[Page 15612]]

startup for new and significantly modified sources, as described below 
in this section and in section IV.C of this preamble. For periods of 
initial startup for new or significantly modified sources, we are 
finalizing work practice standards, including operation of the mineral 
oil absorption system and solvent condensers at all times during the 
initial startup period, and a requirement to establish and follow site-
specific operating ranges for temperature and vacuum for the 
desolventizing and oil distillation units associated with solvent 
recovery, as well as associated recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements (e.g., initial startup report) for these periods. 
Facilities will continue to have the option to meet the requirements 
for normal operating periods in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. The EPA is 
also finalizing the definition of ``initial startup period'' and the 
requirements of 40 CFR 62.2850(c)(2) and (d)(2) to clarify that the end 
of the initial startup period occurs when the plant meets and maintains 
steady-state operations. Steady-state is 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. Any initial startup period may not exceed 6 calendar 
months after startup for new or reconstructed sources or 3 calendar 
months after startup for modified sources.
    As discussed in section IV.D of the June 27, 2019, proposal 
preamble, 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, although the EPA has the 
discretion to set standards for malfunctions where feasible. We noted 
that our interpretation regarding CAA section 112 not requiring 
emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into 
development of CAA section 112 standards has been upheld as reasonable 
by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). 
The EPA further explained that, ``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'' (84 FR 30827).
    While we requested comment on work practice standards during 
periods of malfunction, and received some information in support of 
such standards, we did not receive sufficient information on which to 
base a malfunction standard. As further explained at proposal, ``[i]n 
the 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 preventive 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'' (84 FR 30828).
    For these reasons, we are not setting separate standards for 
periods of malfunction. Under the final rule, sources that experience 
an unscheduled shutdown as a result of a malfunction, continue to 
operate during a malfunction (including the period reasonably necessary 
to correct the malfunction), or start up after a shutdown resulting 
from a malfunction must instead meet the emission standard requirements 
for either a normal operating period or the work practice standards for 
an initial startup period (if a new or significantly modified source) 
in 40 CFR 63.2850 and Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. Although we did not 
propose and are not finalizing work practice standards for periods of 
malfunction, we are finalizing revisions to deviation reporting to 
account for one-time malfunction events in which the potential solvent 
loss could result in a deviation for one or more consecutive monthly 
compliance ratio determinations. Specifically, we have revised the 
final rule to include a requirement that facilities flag and provide an 
explanation for any deviation from the compliance ratio for which a 
deviation report is being submitted for more than one consecutive month 
(i.e., include a reference to the original date and reporting of the 
deviation). Although a facility would need to retain records of any 
deviation and the corrective action(s) performed, no additional 
corrective action would be required at the time the 12-month compliance 
ratio is officially exceeded in subsequent months if the facility 
demonstrates the exceedance is from a prior malfunction that has been 
corrected.
    As is explained in more detail below, we are finalizing revisions 
related to requirements that apply during periods of SSM. We eliminated 
or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to 
the eliminated SSM exemption. The EPA also made changes to the rule to 
remove or modify inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant language in 
the absence of the SSM exemption. Refer to sections III.C.1 through 
III.C.6 of this preamble for a detailed discussion of the final 
amendments.
1. 40 CFR 63.2840 General Duty
    We are finalizing as proposed revisions to the General Provisions 
applicability table (Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``Yes'' in column 4 to a ``No.'' The EPA 
is instead adding 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 general duty to 
minimize emissions continues to apply during periods of malfunction and 
sources must still address malfunctions expeditiously in order to 
maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution 
control equipment and monitoring equipment, and minimize emissions. The 
EPA is also revising the General Provisions applicability table (Table 
1 to 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the 
``Yes'' in column 4 to a ``No'' to remove 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).
2. SSM Plan
    As proposed, the EPA is revising the General Provisions 
applicability table (Table 1 to 40 CFR 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 revising 40 CFR 63.2852, which cross-
references the requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3). The final amendments 
remove requirements related to the SSM plan.

[[Page 15613]]

3. Compliance With Standards
    The EPA is revising the General Provisions applicability table 
(Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by revising the 
text in column 4 and removing the text in column 5 to clarify that the 
SSM exemption previously applied but will not apply going forward.
4. 40 CFR 63.2853 Performance Testing
    We are also finalizing a revision to the performance testing 
requirements. The EPA is revising the General Provisions applicability 
table (Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by 
changing the ``Yes'' in column 4 to a ``No,'' and adding a revised 
performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.2853(a)(5)(i)(A). The 
final performance testing provisions prohibit performance testing for 
purposes of demonstrating compliance during startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction because these conditions are not representative of normal 
operating periods. The final rule also requires that operators maintain 
records to document that operating conditions during the test represent 
normal operations.
5. 40 CFR 63.2862 Recordkeeping
    The EPA is revising the General Provisions applicability table 
(Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing 
the ``Yes'' in column 4 to a ``No,'' and is adding recordkeeping 
requirements to 40 CFR 63.2862(f). The final revisions require owners 
or operators of sources subject to a work practice standard during 
initial startup times to 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 final revisions also require 
facilities to record information including the measured temperature and 
pressure for desolventizing and oil distillation units; an indication 
that the mineral oil absorption system was operating at all times; and 
(3) an indication that the solvent condensers were operating at all 
times.
    The EPA is revising the General Provisions applicability table 
(Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by 
changing the ``Yes'' in column 4 to a ``No.'' The final rule includes 
recordkeeping requirements for malfunctions in 40 CFR 63.2862(g), 
including any ``failure to meet an applicable standard'' (including any 
deviation from the emissions standards of 40 CFR 63.2840 or the work 
practice standards for periods of initial startup). Source owners or 
operators must record the date and duration of the ``failure.'' We have 
revised the final rule requirements from proposal to clarify how to 
designate the date a deviation occurred and the duration of the 
deviation. For deviations from the compliance ratio, the date of the 
deviation is the date the compliance ratio determination is made, and 
the duration of the deviation is the length of time taken to address 
the cause of the deviation (including the duration of any malfunction) 
and to return the affected unit(s) to its normal or usual manner of 
operation. For deviations from the work practice standard during the 
initial startup period, the date of the deviation is the date when the 
facility fails to comply with any of the work practice standards in 40 
CFR 63.2840(h), and the duration of the deviation is the length of time 
taken to return to the work practice standards. We have also removed 
the requirement to record and report the time of the deviation as 
described in section IV.C of this preamble.
    The EPA is adding 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.
    The EPA is revising the General Provisions applicability table 
(Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ``Yes'' in column 4 to a ``No'' to 
remove requirements related to the SSM plan. The final rule includes a 
requirement to record actions to minimize emissions and record 
corrective actions in 40 CFR 63.2862(g).
6. 40 CFR 63.2861 Reporting
    To replace the SSM reporting requirements, the EPA is eliminating 
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 removing the requirement 
in 40 CFR 63.2861(d) to submit an immediate report for SSM when a 
source failed to meet an applicable standard but did not follow the SSM 
plan. The EPA is instead requiring that existing or new source owners 
or operators that fail to meet the applicable emission standards 
(including sources that experience a malfunction) or the work practice 
standards for initial startup periods at any time must report the 
information concerning such events in the deviation report, including 
the number, date, 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. For sources operating under an initial startup 
period, the EPA is also finalizing a provision that source owners or 
operators that fail to meet the work practice standard must include a 
description of the deviation and include the records for the initial 
startup period in 40 CFR 63.2862(f).
    Finally, the EPA is finalizing 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, 
including a compliance certification indicating whether the source was 
in compliance with the work practice standard of 40 CFR 63.2840(h). The 
initial report must be submitted within 30 days of the end of the 
initial startup period.
    The legal rationale and detailed changes for SSM periods that we 
are finalizing here are set forth in the proposed rule (see 84 FR 
30825). Section IV.C of this preamble provides a summary of key 
comments we received on the SSM provisions and our responses.

D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?

    This rule also finalizes, as proposed, revisions to several other 
NESHAP requirements. To increase the ease and efficiency of data 
submittal and data accessibility, we are finalizing a requirement that 
owners and operators of facilities in the Solvent Extraction for 
Vegetable Oil Production source category submit electronic copies of 
initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance 
certifications, deviation reports, and performance test reports through 
the EPA's CDX using the CEDRI. 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. We also are finalizing, as 
proposed, provisions that allow

[[Page 15614]]

facility operators the ability to seek extensions for submitting 
electronic reports for circumstances beyond the control of the 
facility, i.e., for a possible outage in the CDX or CEDRI or for a 
force majeure event in the time just prior to a report's due date, as 
well as the process to assert such a claim.
    The EPA is finalizing several minor technical editorial changes to 
the rule. The EPA is finalizing several definitions in 40 CFR 63.2872 
to harmonize with the removal of the SSM requirements and to clarify 
existing provisions. The definitions of ``Compliance ratio,'' 
``Nonoperating period,'' ``Normal operating period,'' and ``Operating 
month'' are revised in the final rule to clarify that we have removed 
malfunction periods as a distinct source operating status during which 
no limits or work practices applied. The definition of ``Normal 
operating period'' is also revised to clarify that this definition also 
applies to ``normal operation.''
    The EPA is revising the definition of ``Hazardous Air Pollutant 
(HAP)'' as proposed to remove the reference to the date of April 12, 
2001. Finally, the EPA is adding a definition for ``Nonoperating 
month'' as proposed.
    The EPA is finalizing 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 revising Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850 to 
correct a typographical error in row ``(a)'' for malfunction periods.
    The legal rationale and detailed changes for these revisions are 
set forth in the proposed rule (see 84 FR 30830).

E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 
action are effective on March 18, 2020.
    Existing affected sources and affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction on or before June 27, 2019, must comply 
with the amendments no later than 180 days after March 18, 2020. 
Affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after 
June 27, 2019 must comply with all requirements of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart GGGG, no later than the effective date of the final rule or 
upon startup, whichever is later. The EPA is finalizing three changes 
that would affect ongoing compliance requirements for the Solvent 
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP. First, for all sources, 
we are finalizing a requirement that initial notifications, initial 
startup reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, 
and performance test results be electronically submitted. Next, the EPA 
is finalizing changing the requirements for SSM by removing the 
exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM 
periods. For new or significantly modified sources, we are finalizing 
an option for facilities to follow new work practice standards for 
periods of initial startup. From our assessment of the timeframe needed 
for implementing the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA 
proposed a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance 
period practicable for existing affected sources or affected sources 
that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before June 27, 
2019. No comments on the compliance period were received during the 
public comment period and the 180-day period is being finalized as 
proposed. Thus, the compliance date of the final amendments for all 
existing sources and new sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or before June 27, 2019, will be September 15, 2020. 
The compliance date of the final amendments for new sources that 
commence construction or reconstruction after June 27, 2019, will be 
March 18, 2020.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale 
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments 
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment 
summaries, and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary 
and response document, Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the 
Risk and Technology Review for Solvent Extraction For Vegetable Oil 
Production, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

A. Residual Risk Review for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil 
Production Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Solvent 
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk 
review and presented the results of this review, along with our 
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of 
safety, in the June 27, 2019, proposed rule for 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
GGGG (84 FR 30812). The results of the risk assessment for the proposal 
are presented briefly in Table 2 of this preamble. More detail may be 
found in the residual risk technical support document, Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production 
Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Final 
Rule, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

      Table 2--Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Inhalation Proposed Risk Assessment Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Estimated
                                  Maximum     population  at     Estimated
                                individual       increased     annual cancer   Maximum chronic       Maximum
  Number of  facilities \1\     cancer risk   risk of cancer     incidence     noncancer TOSHI   screening acute
                              (in 1 million)      >=1-in-1      (cases per           \3\          noncancer HQ
                                    \2\           million          year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) for the Solvent Extraction for
  Vegetable Oil Production source category is the nervous system (neurocognitive and neurobehavioral effects).


[[Page 15615]]

    The results of the proposed inhalation risk assessment using actual 
emissions data, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate the 
estimated cancer maximum individual risk (MIR) is less than 1-in-1 
million. At proposal, the total estimated cancer incidence from this 
source category was estimated to be 0.00005 excess cancer cases per 
year, or 1 case every 20,000 years and for allowable emissions was 
0.0002 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 5,000 years driven 
by emissions of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. At proposal, the maximum 
modeled chronic noncancer TOSHI for the source category based on actual 
emissions was estimated to be 0.7 and, for allowable emissions, was 
estimated to be 2 due to emissions of n-hexane. Approximately 13 people 
were estimated to have exposures resulting in a TOSHI greater than 1 if 
exposed to allowable emissions from this source category.
    As shown in Table 2 of this preamble, the worst-case acute hazard 
quotient (HQ) (based on the reference exposure level (REL)) at proposal 
was less than 1 (0.7 based on the REL for acrolein). This value is the 
highest HQ that is outside facility boundaries. The multipathway risk 
screening assessment did not identify emissions of any HAP known to be 
persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment; therefore, no 
further evaluation of multipathway risk was conducted for this source 
category. Further, because we did not identify environmental HAP 
emissions, no quantitative environmental risk screening was conducted 
for this source category.
    We conducted an assessment of facility-wide risks. The maximum 
lifetime individual cancer risk posed by the 88 facilities, based on 
facility-wide emissions at proposal, was 5-in-1 million with cadmium, 
nickel, arsenic, chromium (VI), and formaldehyde emissions from 
facility-wide external combustion boilers driving the risk. The maximum 
chronic noncancer TOSHI posed by facility-wide emissions was estimated 
to be 0.7 (for the nervous system) driven by source category n-hexane 
emissions.
    We weighed all health risk factors, including those shown in Table 
2 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability determination and 
proposed that the risks from the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil 
Production source category are acceptable (section IV.C.1 of proposal 
preamble, 84 FR 30812, June 27, 2019).
    We then considered whether the existing MACT standards for this 
source category provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health and whether, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors, standards are required to prevent an 
adverse environmental effect. In considering whether standards are 
required to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, 
we considered the same risk factors that we considered for our 
acceptability determination and also considered the costs, 
technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to 
emissions control options that might reduce risk associated with 
emissions from the source category. We proposed that the current 
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health 
and revision of the standards for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable 
Oil Production source category are not required to provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health. We also proposed that it is 
not necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into 
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an 
adverse environmental effect (see section IV.B of proposal preamble, 84 
FR 30812, June 27, 2019.)
2. How did the risk review change for the Solvent Extraction For 
Vegetable Oil Production source category?
    We have not changed any aspect of the risk assessment since the 
June 27, 2019, RTR proposal for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable 
Oil Production source category. We received several comments indicating 
that the risk assessment (1) Improperly included emissions of 
acetaldehyde that are not associated with the Solvent Extraction for 
Vegetable Oil Production source category, but are emitted from other 
facility processes; (2) overestimated actual emissions for certain 
facilities where the EPA assumed that reported volatile organic 
compound (VOC) emissions were n-hexane; and (3) overestimated allowable 
emissions for the source category based on the assumptions used to 
develop the MACT allowable-to-actual emissions multiplier.
    As discussed in section IV.A.3 of this preamble, the inputs and 
assumptions in the risk assessment at proposal are likely to 
overestimate the risks from the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil 
Production source category. However, the risks as modeled at proposal 
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 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, and 2 for MACT-allowable emissions with an estimated 
13 people exposed to a TOSHI greater than 1. Although for MACT-
allowable emissions, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI due to 
inhalation exposures is 2, we note that due to the inherent health 
protective nature of our risk assessment methods and the uncertainties 
in this assessment (i.e., the emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, 
and exposure estimates), our risk estimates are conservative. For 
example, risk estimates for allowable emissions were based on scaled-up 
actual emissions. At the first facility with a TOSHI value greater than 
1, allowable emissions are based on permit data. At the other facility, 
allowable emissions are based on an allowable multiplier applied to 
actual emissions.
    Additionally, the results of the acute screening analysis showed 
that acute risks were below a level of concern. Because the risk 
assessment already shows risks from the source category are acceptable 
and that the existing standards provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health, revision of the risk assessment to address the 
comments that our emission estimates were too high would not change the 
EPA's finding that the risks from the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable 
Oil Production source category are acceptable.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are 
our responses?
    We received comments in support of and opposed to our proposed risk 
assessment and determination that no revisions to the standards are 
warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2) for the Solvent Extraction for 
Vegetable Oil Production source category. Generally, the comments that 
were not supportive of the acceptability and ample margin of safety 
determinations suggested changes to the underlying risk assessment 
methodology. The suggested changes to the EPA's risk assessment 
methodology included that the EPA should lower its presumptive limit of 
acceptability for cancer risks to below 100-in-1 million, include 
emissions outside of the source categories in question in the risk 
assessment, and assume that pollutants with noncancer health effects 
have no safe level of exposure. Other commenters asserted that the 
methodology for developing modeling inputs overestimated the actual or 
allowable emissions of certain pollutants from specific facilities, and 
subsequently overstated the risks from the source category. We 
evaluated all comments and determined that no

[[Page 15616]]

changes regarding our risk review were needed. These comments and our 
specific responses can be found below and in the comment summary and 
response document titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for 
the Risk and Technology Review for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil 
Production, which is available in the docket for this action.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the acetaldehyde emissions that 
were modeled for the ADM-Clinton facility were not associated with the 
vegetable oil process and should not have been included in the source 
category modeling file. The commenter stated that the EPA should 
correct the risk assessment by removing acetaldehyde for the ADM-
Clinton facility.
    Response: As noted at proposal, we included acetaldehyde emissions 
in the modeling file for the source category with the understanding 
that their inclusion in the assessment would result in a conservative 
estimate of risk. We acknowledge that a reassessment of risk that 
excludes acetaldehyde emissions from the facility would result in lower 
facility emissions, and potentially lower the source category risks 
associated with acetaldehyde. Therefore, because revising the 
assessment by removing acetaldehyde emissions from the source category 
modeling file would not change the outcome of our risk determination, 
we are not undertaking further analysis. We note that the acetaldehyde 
emissions would continue to be considered as part of the facility-wide 
risk assessment (see 84 FR 30824) and whole facility risks.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA overestimated actual 
emissions for nine facilities where the EPA assumed that 100 percent of 
the reported VOC emissions were emitted as n-hexane. The commenter 
stated that although the EPA did not identify the nine facilities, the 
commenter's review indicated that actual emissions in the modeling file 
for several sources significantly exceeded the actual 2014 emissions of 
n-hexane. The commenter stated that the EPA should identify the extent 
to which the reported HI (0.7) may be affected by this assumption. The 
commenter also stated that the EPA overestimated the allowable-to-
actual ratio used to estimate allowable emissions for multiple 
facilities. The commenter asserted that although the EPA did not 
identify the facilities that were used to estimate an allowable-to-
actual ratio, they believe, based on a review of the data, that the EPA 
overestimated the allowable-to-actual ratio by incorrectly assuming 
that n-hexane emissions were equal to total solvent (VOC) loss or by 
not accounting for the volume fraction of n-hexane in solvent.
    Response: As noted at proposal (84 FR 30818), the EPA assumed for 
certain facilities that all solvent loss reported as VOC is emitted as 
n-hexane. We adopted this approach where data for facility hexane 
emissions were unavailable or lacking, recognizing that this approach 
would provide the most conservative estimate of risk. Additionally, the 
MACT allowable emissions multiplier conservatively assumed that all 
loss of n-hexane in the solvent extraction process is emitted to the 
atmosphere (84 FR 30819). The proposed approach was adopted taking into 
consideration that the volume fraction of n-hexane may vary 
significantly within a solvent (the solvent used in vegetable oil 
production facilities is 100-percent VOC and may range from less than 1 
percent to 88-percent n-hexane). Where emissions of n-hexane or the 
volume fraction of n-hexane were not readily available from permit 
materials, we conservatively assumed all solvent loss is n-hexane. 
Therefore, the risk assessment does likely overestimate the actual and 
allowable emissions for certain facilities; as noted at proposal, these 
conservative assumptions were adopted to account for the potential 
``worst-case'' risks given that we lacked complete information on the 
n-hexane emissions for specific facilities. Although we acknowledge 
that the source category risks would be lower with the adjustments 
requested by the commenters, revision of the actual emissions or MACT-
allowable emissions in the modeling file would not change the EPA's 
conclusions regarding risk.
    Comment: One commenter objected to the EPA's methodology for the 
acute risk assessment. The commenter stated that the risk assessment is 
weakened because the EPA used ``reasonable worst-case'' conditions. The 
commenter stated that after recognizing the need to evaluate the worst-
case set of conditions, it is inherently contradictory and circular for 
the EPA to decide to ignore the impacts by deciding that the worst-case 
is not actually ``reasonable.'' Another commenter stated the assessment 
of risks for acute exposure is conservative. It assumes that estimated 
1-hour peak emissions occur at the same time as the ``reasonable worst-
case'' meteorological conditions and that an individual will be exposed 
at this time and under these conditions at the location of the maximum 
predicted impact.
    Response: The EPA disagrees that our Acute Screening-Level 
Assessment should not be based on ``reasonable worst-case'' 
meteorological conditions. In developing an acute exposure scenario, we 
estimate 1-hour exposure concentrations through air dispersion modeling 
during hours of peak emissions. However, hourly emissions data are not 
typically available, and the exact hours of peak emissions are often 
unknown, making it difficult to determine the meteorological conditions 
to model with the peak emissions. We make assumptions about when peak 
hourly emissions occur. In a worst-case scenario, peak hourly emissions 
would occur during the 1 hour of the year with the worst-case air 
dispersion conditions (i.e., low, continuous wind speeds blowing in a 
specific direction). However, the probability of peak hourly emissions 
occurring in the same hour as the worst-case air dispersion conditions 
is extremely low. For example, as documented in Appendix 5 of the 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil 
Production Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology 
Review Final Rule, available in the docket for this rulemaking, 
conservatively the probability of these two events occurring 
simultaneously is about 1-in-200,000 (or a 0.0005 percent chance). 
Instead, we use ``reasonable worst-case'' meteorological conditions. 
This approach strikes a balance of being health protective without 
overestimating acute exposures and has a reasonable probability of 
occurrence (conservatively, an 88-in-200,000 chance or 0.044 percent). 
Using the ``reasonable worst-case'' meteorological conditions, the 
scenario we modeled is a rare event (peak emissions would have a 0.044% 
chance of occuring during the same hour as the ``reasonable worst-
case'' meteorology based on conservative assumptions, or a 99.956% 
chance of not occuring during that hour) rather than a scenario that is 
extremely unlikely (peak emissions would have a 0.0005% chance of 
occuring during the same hour as the worst-case meteorology, or a 
99.9995% chance of not occuring during that hour).
    After review of all the comments received, we determined that no 
changes to the risk assessment were necessary. The comments and our 
specific responses can be found in the document, Summary of Public 
Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for the 
Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category, 
available in the docket for this action.

[[Page 15617]]

4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the risk review?
    As noted in our proposal, 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'' (see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). We weigh all health 
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the 
cancer MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum cancer TOSHI, the maximum 
acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of 
cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and the risk 
estimation uncertainties.
    Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations 
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse 
environmental effects have changed. For the reasons explained in the 
proposed rule, we determined that the risks from the Solvent Extraction 
for Vegetable Oil Production source category are acceptable, and the 
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, we are 
not revising the standards for this source category pursuant to CAA 
section 112(f)(2) based on the residual risk review, and we are 
readopting the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2).

B. Technology Review for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil 
Production Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the 
Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we proposed to conclude that no 
revisions to the current MACT standards for this source category are 
necessary for control of n-hexane emissions from vegetable oil 
production facilities (sections IV.C of proposal preamble, 84 FR 
30825). We did not find any developments in practices, processes, and 
control technologies that could be applied to solvent extraction for 
vegetable oil process vents and that could be used to reduce emissions 
from solvent extraction for vegetable oil production facilities. We 
also did not identify any developments in work practices, pollution 
prevention techniques, or process changes that could achieve emission 
reductions from solvent extraction for vegetable oil process vents. We 
identified for consideration the use of a cryogenic condenser after the 
main vent as an add-on control option, based on a review of best 
available control technology analyses where such controls were 
previously considered. However, based on the costs and emission 
reductions for the proposed options, we did not find the use of a 
cryogenic condenser as cost effective for reducing emissions from these 
emission sources at solvent extraction for vegetable oil production 
units; and we proposed that it is not necessary to revise the MACT 
standards for these emission sources pursuant to 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.
2. How did the technology review change for the Solvent Extraction for 
Vegetable Oil Production source category?
    We have not changed any aspect of the technology review since the 
June 27, 2019, RTR proposal for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable 
Oil Production source category.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    We received comments in support of and opposed to the proposed 
determination from the technology review that no revisions were 
warranted under CAA section 112(d)(6). We evaluated the comments and 
determined that no changes regarding our determination were needed. 
These comments and our specific responses can be found in the comment 
summary and response document titled Summary of Public Comments and 
Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for Solvent Extraction for 
Vegetable Oil Production, which is available in the docket for this 
action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology 
review?
    We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's technology review and 
determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons 
explained in the proposed rule, we determined that no cost-effective 
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies were 
identified in our technology review to warrant revisions to the 
standards. More information concerning our technology review, and how 
we evaluate cost effectiveness, can be found in the memorandum titled 
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, and in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 
30825). Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we are finalizing 
our technology review as proposed.

C. SSM for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source 
Category

1. What amendments did we propose to address emissions during periods 
of SSM?
    We proposed removing and revising provisions related to SSM that 
are not consistent with the requirement that standards apply at all 
times. We proposed that the emission standards for normal operation 
apply at all times, except for periods of initial startup, for new or 
significantly modified sources as described below. We proposed 
alternate standards for initial startup periods for new or 
significantly modified sources. Specifically, we proposed that new or 
significantly modified 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. We also 
proposed that facilities establish and follow site-specific operating 
ranges for temperature and vacuum for the desolventizing and oil 
distillation units associated with solvent recovery. New and 
significantly modified facilities would also continue to have the 
option to meet the requirements for normal operating periods in Table 1 
of 40 CFR 63.2850, in lieu of the work practice standards. We also 
proposed to revise the definition of ``Initial startup period'' to 
clarify the time at which an initial startup period ends and a normal 
operating period begins.
    We proposed to remove malfunction periods as a distinct source 
operating status, which previously allowed sources to exclude data 
collected during the ``malfunction period'' when determining compliance 
with the emission standards. Under the proposed rule, sources that 
experience an unscheduled shutdown as a result of a malfunction, 
continue to operate during a malfunction (including the period 
reasonably necessary to correct the malfunction), or start up after a 
shutdown resulting from a malfunction must instead meet the emission 
standard requirements for either a

[[Page 15618]]

normal operating period or the work practice standards for an initial 
startup period (if applicable) in 40 CFR 63.2850 and Table 1 of 40 CFR 
63.2850. We also proposed to remove reference to SSM exemptions from 
the general duty requirements,\3\ to remove SSM plans, to remove 
references to SSM exemptions in requirements related to compliance with 
the standards and performance testing, and to revise recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements that are not consistent with the requirement 
that standards apply at all times. More information concerning our 
proposal on SSM can be found in the proposed rule (84 FR 30825, June 
27, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We proposed 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 
(see 84 FR 30828).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. How did the SSM provisions change since proposal?
    We are finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed, except for minor 
clarifications. We are finalizing the proposed alternate work practice 
standards for initial startup periods for new or significantly modified 
sources, and we are finalizing our proposal to remove malfunction 
periods as a source operating status, which previously allowed sources 
to exclude data collected during the ``malfunction period'' when 
calculating their compliance ratio according to 40 CFR 63.2840. We are 
finalizing the removal and revision of SSM requirements related to 
general duty, SSM plans, compliance with the standards, and performance 
testing as proposed (84 FR 30825). We are revising the recordkeeping 
requirements at 40 CFR 63.2862 and the reporting requirements at 40 CFR 
63.2861 as proposed, with the exception of minor revisions to clarify 
how to designate the date a deviation occurred and the duration of the 
deviation. For deviations from the compliance ratio for facilities 
operating under a normal operating period, the date of the deviation is 
the date the compliance ratio determination is made, and the duration 
of the deviation is the length of time taken to address the cause of 
the deviation (including the duration of any malfunction) and to return 
the affected unit(s) to its normal or usual manner of operation. For 
deviations from the work practice standard for facilities operating 
under an initial startup period, the date of the deviation is the date 
when the facility fails to comply with any of the work practice 
standards in 40 CFR 63.2840(h), and the duration of the deviation is 
the length of time taken to return to the work practice standards. We 
have also removed the requirement to record and report the time of day 
the deviation occurred, since deviations from the compliance ratio are 
determined at the end of the period.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM revisions and what are 
our responses?
    We received one comment supporting our proposed removal of the 
exemption in the regulations for emissions during SSM periods. We 
received two comments supporting our proposal to establish an option to 
follow a work practice standard during initial startup periods for new 
or significantly modified sources, and did not receive any comments 
opposing the proposed work practice standards during initial startup 
periods. We received additional comments requesting that startup or 
shutdown periods be taken into account when setting the MACT standard. 
We received comments both for and against the proposed removal of 
``malfunction periods'' as a distinct source operating status. We also 
received comments requesting clarification on the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements for the date, time, and duration of a deviation. 
We evaluated all comments and determined that no changes to the 
proposed alternate work practice standards for initial startup periods 
for new or significantly modified sources; no changes to the proposed 
removal of requirements that allowed sources to designate the operating 
status as a distinct ``malfunction periods'' (facilities must instead 
meet the requirements of normal operation or initial startup); and no 
changes to the proposed removal or revision of provisions related to 
SSM are required, with the exception of minor clarifications as 
discussed in this section.
    Comment: Two commenters stated that the EPA should take periods of 
startup and shutdown into account when setting the MACT emissions 
standards. The commenters stated that if the EPA is removing the 
exemption of startup and shutdown emissions from the calculation of the 
compliance ratio, the EPA should recalculate the MACT emission limits 
based on normal operation plus periods of startup and shutdown. The 
commenters stated that the EPA has indicated the current NESHAP 
provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and that 
this indicates there is ample room to increase the MACT limits to more 
appropriate levels that include the startup and shutdown operations. 
Another commenter stated that the proposed elimination of relief for 
SSM events is not required for the rule to be consistent with Sierra 
Club v. EPA. The commenter asserted that other court opinions have 
emphasized the need for standards to accommodate higher emission levels 
that occur at times other than normal operations.
    Response: We do not agree that the MACT emission limits should be 
recalculated to include periods of startup and shutdown. We disagree 
with the commenter's suggestion that the legal precedent established in 
case law (i.e., Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008)) is 
not relevant. The Sierra Club decision held that emissions limitations 
under CAA section 112 must apply continuously and meet minimum 
stringency requirements, even during periods of SSM. Consistent with 
Sierra Club v. EPA, for the reasons explained in the proposal preamble 
at 83 FR 30285, we are finalizing our proposal to eliminate the SSM 
language in 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG. Subpart GGGG had both rule-
specific SSM language and references to SSM language in the part 63 
General Provisions in Table 1 of 63.2870, specifically reference to 40 
CFR 63.6(f)(1). As we explained in the proposal, our SSM-related rule 
revisions are in response to the Sierra Club Court's vacatur of the SSM 
exemption in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1). When incorporated 
into CAA section 112(d) regulations for specific source categories, 
these two provisions exempted sources from the requirement to comply 
with otherwise applicable MACT standards during periods of SSM. The 
Court's vacatur rendered those provisions null and void prior to this 
rulemaking. The mandate implementing the Court's decision was issued on 
October 16, 2009, at which time the vacated SSM provision 40 CFR 
63.6(f)(1) referenced by subpart GGGG was no longer in effect. 
Eliminating reference to this provision, and other related General 
Provisions referenced in subpart GGGG, is a ministerial action by the 
EPA to reflect the vacatur by the Court. We also eliminated the rule-
specific SSM provisions in subpart GGGG. The final standards will apply 
at all times, consistent with the Sierra Club decision.
    As an alternative approach consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA may 
designate different standards to apply during startup and shutdown (as 
noted in the proposal, the EPA is not obligated to set standards for 
periods of malfunction). For this category, the compliance approaches 
required by state regulatory authorities led us to decide special 
startup/shutdown standards were unnecessary for existing sources. Based

[[Page 15619]]

on discussions with industry, there are not significant differences in 
the production process or operation of solvent recovery equipment 
during startup or shutdown of an existing facility that would preclude 
the facility from complying with the existing standards. A review of 
title V permits identified that approximately 35 percent of existing 
facilities are already required to account for periods of routine 
startup (not initial startup) and shutdown in determining their 
compliance ratio. This requirement was found commonly across states and 
regions, indicating that existing sources operating during periods of 
routine startup and shutdown are able to demonstrate compliance with 
the emission standards. Furthermore, the commenter did not provide any 
evidence that emissions during routine startup and shutdown vary 
considerably from normal operation. Consequently, the final rule's 
elimination of periods of startup and shutdown for existing sources 
reflects this capability.
    For the reasons explained in the proposal preamble, we are 
finalizing alternate standards for periods of initial startup for new 
or significantly modified sources. Because the initial startup period 
reflects a non-steady state of production, emissions testing during 
this period would not likely be representative or yield meaningful 
results for the establishment of separate emission limits. As discussed 
at proposal, 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 variability that is 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 necessitate 
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 that requires repair or replacement. The EPA 
evaluated the available data for new or significantly modified sources 
to establish potential standards for periods of initial startup, 
including review of operating permits from various state and local 
agencies and EPA Regional offices. We noted that the standards have not 
previously required--and state, local, and Regional offices have not 
collected--emissions data for these facilities during their initial 
startup periods. Further, where the EPA identified a recently 
constructed facility with permitted MACT allowable solvent loss for an 
initial startup period, we determined that the allowable solvent loss 
for the facility was not based on measured data, and 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, we did not 
receive sufficient information, including additional quantitative 
emissions data, on which to base a numeric standard for initial startup 
periods at new or significantly modified facilities. The EPA recognizes 
that the initial startup period, which is a one-time event for new 
sources and an infrequent event for significantly modified sources, is 
not a typical startup period that may occur as part of routine or 
seasonal startups of a plant. Instead, the initial startup period 
includes evaluation and replacement of new equipment as each phase is 
brought online and production is gradually increased. Therefore, 
emissions testing during initial startup would be both economically and 
technically infeasible. Consequently, the EPA is finalizing a work 
practice standard rather than an emissions limit for this period.
    Notwithstanding the finding that the MACT-based limits of the 
initial NESHAP provide and ample margin of safety, the EPA lacks the 
authority to relax limits developed in the MACT process based on 
finding that the limits provide an ample margin of safety. Were the EPA 
to do so, then the limits would not meet the strict structure of MACT. 
The risk-based limits under CAA section 112(f)(2) were intended to 
augment MACT when the post-MACT risks did not provide an ample margin 
of safety to protect public health. There is no indication in the 
statute that the risk-based standards were intended to revoke the 
requirements to have MACT standards. A risk-based standard is only 
required when the MACT-based does not sufficiently reduce risk (see CAA 
section 112(f)(2)(A)).
    Additionally, the EPA's finding is that the existing MACT-based 
standard does not need to be made more stringent to comply with CAA 
section 112(f)(2) (i.e., to provide an ample margin of safety). The EPA 
has not made a finding that the existing standards somehow exceed an 
ample margin of safety. There is no finding that there is ``room to 
increase'' the limits while also complying with the requirement to 
provide an ample margin of safety required by CAA section 112(f)(2).
    Comment: One commenter asserted that it would be arbitrary and 
capricious for the EPA to ignore the existence of malfunctions even at 
best-performing sources, or to assume that the best-performing sources 
achieve emission levels that they do not achieve part of the time. The 
commenter urged that if the EPA adopts MACT standards that it 
recognizes even the best-performing existing sources cannot achieve 
part of the time, the EPA would be going beyond the MACT floor. Three 
commenters stated that the EPA should take malfunctions into account 
when adopting emissions standards. One commenter stated that it is not 
apparent from the proposed rule why the EPA believes it needs to remove 
the current provisions related to malfunctions. The commenter asserted 
that the EPA cannot change its position and withdraw a previously 
promulgated provision without providing a full explanation of the 
reason(s) for the change. The same commenter recommended that the EPA 
could instead establish numerical emission limitations that have an 
averaging time of sufficient duration that short, infrequent spikes in 
emissions due to malfunctions would not cause the source to exceed the 
emission limitation. Alternatively, the commenter recommended that the 
EPA could promulgate design, equipment, work practice, or operational 
standards in lieu of a numerical standard. Two commenters stated that 
the EPA should maintain an option in 40 CFR 63.2850(e)(2) either to 
meet the requirements applicable to normal operating periods or to meet 
the requirements for malfunction periods. These commenters urged that 
otherwise there could be unavoidable exceedances of the standards. The 
two commenters recommended that the EPA could adopt similar work 
practice standards for malfunction periods as proposed for initial 
startup periods. Another commenter suggested work practices such as 
monitoring of operating parameters to identify a malfunction and 
stopping or cutting back the process. One commenter supported the 
removal of the malfunction exemptions, stating there is no lawful or 
rational justification for creating non-numerical work practice 
standards during malfunctions.
    Response: We disagree with the commenters' assertions that we must 
set revised or separate standards for periods of malfunction. As 
discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, as the Court recognized 
in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for malfunctions in setting standards 
would be difficult, if not

[[Page 15620]]

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 [ ] 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 (D.C. 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.
    As noted at proposal, the EPA considers 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. 
The EPA has also considered the need for a work practice for periods of 
malfunction for vegetable oil production facilities. Although we 
requested information on emissions and the operation of processes 
during malfunction periods in our consultations with state agencies and 
industry, we did not receive sufficient information for development of 
proposed standards. Therefore, as part of the proposal, the EPA 
solicited information on the type of events that constitute a 
malfunction event, industry best practices, and the best level of 
emission control during malfunction events. The EPA also requested 
commenters provide information on the costs associated with any 
recommended work practices. In addition, the EPA solicited specific 
supporting data on HAP emissions during malfunction events, including 
the cause of malfunction, the frequency of malfunction, duration of 
malfunction, and the estimate of HAP emitted during each malfunction. 
In this case, although we requested comment and information to support 
the development of a standard during periods of malfunction, we did not 
receive sufficient information, including additional quantitative 
emissions data, on which to base a standard. Absent sufficient 
information, it is not reasonable at this time to establish a work 
practice standard for periods of malfunction for this source category. 
For these reasons, we are not setting separate standards for periods of 
malfunction. Under the final rule, sources that experience an 
unscheduled shutdown as a result of a malfunction, continue to operate 
during a malfunction (including the period reasonably necessary to 
correct the malfunction), or start up after a shutdown resulting from a 
malfunction must instead meet the emission standard requirements for 
either a normal operating period or the work practice standards for an 
initial startup period (if a new or significantly modified source) in 
40 CFR 63.2850 and Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. We note that sources must 
still meet the general duty requirements in 40 CFR 63.2840(g) and 
should address malfunctions expeditiously in order to maintain any 
affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment 
and monitoring equipment, and minimize emissions.
    Nevertheless, the EPA acknowledges that including solvent loss from 
a one-time event (like a malfunction) in the 12-month compliance ratio 
could cause a deviation for one or more monthly compliance ratio 
determinations, and would remain in the rolling compliance 
determination for up to 1 year (12 months). We also recognize that it 
is possible that a malfunction that causes a 12-month compliance ratio 
to be exceeded might have been corrected well before the first full 12-
months have passed. Although a facility would need to retain records of 
any deviation and the corrective action(s) performed, no additional 
corrective action would be required at the time the 12-month compliance 
ratio is officially exceeded in subsequent months if the facility 
demonstrates the exceedance is from a prior malfunction that has been 
corrected. Facilities would be able to provide such an explanation in 
their deviation reports; specifically, we have revised the deviation 
reporting requirements in the final rule to include a requirement that 
facilities flag and provide an explanation for any deviation from the 
compliance ratio for which a deviation report is being submitted for 
more than 1 consecutive month (i.e., include a reference to the 
original date and reporting of the deviation) (see 40 CFR 63.2861(b)). 
Further, as discussed below in this section, we have clarified that the 
duration of the deviation from the compliance ratio is the length of 
time taken to address the cause of the deviation (including the 
duration of any malfunction) and to return the affected unit(s) to its 
normal or usual manner of operation. Therefore, facilities must retain 
records of the date and duration of the malfunction, as well as the 
corrective action(s) performed, to demonstrate the basis for the 
deviation in subsequent periods.
    As further explained at proposal, ``[i]n the 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 
preventive 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,

[[Page 15621]]

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'' (84 FR 30828).
    Comment: We received one comment requesting clarification on the 
revised reporting and recordkeeping requirements for deviations. The 
commenter requested that the EPA clarify how a facility should 
designate the date a deviation occurred. The commenter recommended that 
because there is a single compliance ratio determination for an 
operating month, the rule should specify that a deviation be reported 
as occurring on the date the compliance ratio determination is made. 
The commenter also requested clarification on the duration of a 
deviation, noting that solvent loss from a one-time event (like a 
malfunction) could cause a deviation for one or more monthly compliance 
ratio determinations. The commenter stated it is unreasonable to 
require facilities to report events that may last only 1 day as having 
a duration of 30 days or even longer, and asked the EPA to clarify if 
the deviation reporting requirements only apply to work practice 
standards. Finally, the commenter stated the reporting template should 
not require facilities to report the time of a deviation; the commenter 
urged that the time of day a deviation occurs is not needed to 
determine compliance with the standards.
    Response: We agree with the commenter and have revised the 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements for deviations for 
clarification. Specifically, we have revised the recordkeeping 
requirements of 40 CFR 63.2862(g)(1) to clarify that for deviations 
from the compliance ratio, the date of the deviation is the date the 
compliance ratio determination is made. For deviations from the work 
practice standard during the initial startup period, the date of the 
deviation is the date when the facility fails to comply with any of the 
work practice standard in 40 CFR 63.2840(h) (e.g., if the facility 
fails to operate the mineral oil absorption system or the solvent 
condenser at all times during the initial startup period, or fails to 
meet the site-specific operating limits established by the facility). 
These dates must be reported in the deviation notification report 
according to the final rule requirements at 40 CFR 63.2861(b)(5). We 
have revised 40 CFR 63.2862(g)(1) to clarify that for deviations from 
the compliance ratio, the duration of the deviation is the length of 
time taken to address the cause of the deviation (including the 
duration of any malfunction) and to return the affected unit(s) to its 
normal or usual manner of operation. For deviations from the work 
practice standard during the initial startup period, the duration of 
the deviation is the length of time taken to return to the work 
practice standards. The final rule requirements are consistent with the 
prior requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) to retain a record of the 
``occurrence and duration of each malfunction'' and are necessary to 
allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a 
standard. Finally, we have revised the final rule requirements to 
remove the requirement to record or report the time of a deviation, as 
this information is not necessary to determine compliance with the 
standard.
    Additional comments on the SSM provisions and our specific 
responses to those comments can be found in the document titled Summary 
of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for 
Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production, which is available in 
the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions to 
address emissions during periods of SSM?
    We evaluated all the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments to 
the SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule (84 
FR 30812), we determined that these amendments appropriately remove and 
revise provisions related to SSM that are not consistent with the 
requirement that the standards apply at all times. Therefore, we are 
finalizing the amendments to remove and revise provisions related to 
SSM, as proposed, with the exception of the clarifications discussed in 
this section.

D. Technical Amendments to the MACT Standards for the Solvent 
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category

1. What other amendments did we propose for the Solvent Extraction for 
Vegetable Oil Production source category?
    We proposed that owners and operators submit electronic copies of 
initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance 
certifications, deviation reports, and performance test reports through 
the EPA's CDX using the CEDRI. 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. We 
also proposed two broad circumstances in which we may provide extension 
to these requirements. We proposed at 40 CFR 63.2862(f) that an 
extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI 
that precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and 
submitting required reports. We also proposed at 40 CFR 63.2862(g) that 
an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, such as an 
act of nature, act of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety 
hazards beyond the control of the facility.
    We proposed revisions to several definitions in 40 CFR 63.2872 to 
harmonize with the proposed removal of the SSM requirements and to 
clarify existing provisions, include revisions to definitions of 
``Compliance ratio,'' ``Nonoperating period,'' ``Normal operating 
period,'' and ``Operating month'' to clarify where the malfunction 
period is excluded, and to the definition of ``Normal operating 
period'' to clarify that this definition also applies to ``normal 
operation.'' We also proposed to add a definition for ``Nonoperating 
month.'' We proposed to revise the definition of ``Hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP)'' to remove the reference to the date of April 12, 
2001.
    We proposed 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. 
We also proposed a minor correction to Table 1 of 63.2850 to correct a 
typographical error in row ``(a)'' for malfunction periods.

[[Page 15622]]

2. How did the other amendments for the Solvent Extraction for 
Vegetable Oil Production source category change since proposal?
    There are no changes to the proposed requirements for owners and 
operators to submit electronic copies of initial notifications, initial 
startup reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, 
and performance test reports electronically. We also are finalizing, as 
proposed, the provisions that allow facility operators the ability to 
seek extensions for submitting electronic reports for circumstances 
beyond the control of the facility. There are no changes to the 
proposed definitions in 40 CFR 63.2872, or the minor revisions to 40 
CFR 63.2840(a)(1) and (b)(1), 40 CFR 63.2853(a)(2), 40 CFR 
63.2855(a)(3), or Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850.
3. What key comments did we receive on the other amendments for the 
Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category and 
what are our responses?
    We received one comment providing input on the proposed requirement 
for owners and operators of vegetable oil production facilities to 
submit electronic copies of initial notifications, initial startup 
reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, and 
performance test reports. The commenter stated that the EPA may not 
lawfully or rationally finalize ``exemption provisions'' based on CEDRI 
outages or ``force majeure events.'' The commenter stated the 
provisions do not set a firm deadline to request an extension of the 
reporting deadline. No commenters provided significant comments on the 
proposed definitions in 40 CFR 63.2872, or the proposed minor revisions 
to 40 CFR 63.2840(a)(1) and (b)(1), 40 CFR 63.2853(a)(2), 40 CFR 
63.2855(a)(3), or Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA must not finalize the 
proposed electronic reporting extension provisions because the 
definition of a force majeure event is too broad, the provisions do not 
set a firm deadline to request an extension of the reporting deadline, 
and the decision to allow an extension is solely within the discretion 
of the Administrator. The commenter urged that the proposed provisions 
are unlawful and arbitrary because they would create a broad and vague 
mechanism that a facility owner or operator could use to evade binding 
emission standards, by evading the binding compliance reporting 
deadlines set to assure compliance with those standards. The commenter 
further stated that the EPA should not import the concept of ``force 
majeure'' into any part of the CAA, as to do so is a variation of the 
prior malfunction exemptions that are unlawful under the CAA. The 
commenter also noted that the EPA has provided that there are no known 
issues with submission of ERT-formatted performance test and evaluation 
reports in CEDRI (per the Petroleum Refinery NESHAP), thus, there is no 
rational basis for providing the proposing reporting extensions. At a 
minimum, the commenter requested that the EPA set a new firm deadline 
to assure that the extension request allows only a temporary period 
when the facility need not report, such as a 10-day extension, rather 
than an open-ended extension without a deadline.
    Response: The commenter states that the brief case-by-case 
extension of report submittal deadlines is a ``reporting exemption.'' 
This is not the case. The proposed provisions the commenter questions 
are in paragraphs 40 CFR 63.2861(h) and (i).
    There is no exception or exemption to reporting, much less an 
exemption from compliance with the numerical emission standards, only a 
method for requesting an extension of the reporting deadline. Reporters 
are required to justify their request and identify a reporting date. 
There is no predetermined timeframe for the length of extension that 
can be granted, as this is something best determined by the 
Administrator (i.e., the EPA Administrator or delegated authority as 
defined in 40 CFR 63.2) when reviewing the circumstances surrounding 
the request. Different circumstances may require a different length of 
extension for electronic reporting. For example, a tropical storm may 
delay electronic reporting for a day, but a Hurricane Katrina scale 
event may delay electronic reporting much longer, especially if the 
facility has no power, and as such, the owner or operator has no 
ability to access electronically stored data or to submit reports 
electronically. The Administrator will be the most knowledgeable of the 
events leading to the request for extension and will assess whether an 
extension is appropriate, and if so, a reasonable length for the 
extension. The Administrator may even request that the report be sent 
in hardcopy until electronic reporting can be resumed. While no new 
fixed duration deadline is set, the regulation requires that the report 
be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the CEDRI outage 
or after the force majeure event resolves.
    The concept of force majeure has been implemented by the EPA in 
this context since May 2007 within the CAA requirements through the 
performance test extensions provided in 40 CFR 63.7(a)(4) and 
60.8(a)(1). Like the performance test extensions, the approval of a 
requested extension of an electronic reporting deadline is at the 
discretion of the Administrator.
    The EPA disagrees that the ability to request a reporting extension 
``would create a broad and vague mechanism'' that owners and operators 
``could use to evade binding emissions standards'' or evade ``binding 
compliance reporting deadlines'' for emissions standards. While 
reporting is an important mechanism for the EPA and air agencies to 
assess whether owners and operators are in compliance with emissions 
standards, reporting obligations are separate from (i.e., in addition 
to) requirements that an owner or operator be in compliance with an 
emissions standard, especially where the deadline for meeting the 
standard has already passed and the owner or operator has certified and 
is monitoring operations to show that they are in compliance with the 
standard. The commenter references deadlines set forth in the CAA for 
demonstrating initial compliance following the effective date of 
emission standards, which differs from deadlines for submitting 
reports. There are no such deadlines stated in the CAA for report due 
dates, meaning the EPA has discretion to establish reporting schedules, 
and also discretion to allow a mechanism for extension of those 
schedules on a case-by-case basis. In fact, under the commenter's 
reasoning, if the statutory deadlines for compliance with standards 
were read to strictly apply to continuing reporting requirements, no 
such reporting could be required after 3 years from the promulgation of 
the standards. This would not be a reasonable result. Reporting 
deadlines are often different from compliance deadlines. Rules under 40 
CFR part 60 and 63 typically allow months following an initial 
compliance deadline to conduct testing and submit reports, but 
compliance with standards is required upon the compliance date.
    Additionally, the ability to request a reporting extension does not 
apply to a broad category of circumstances; on the contrary, the scope 
for submitting an extension request for an electronic report is very 
limited in that claims can only be made for an event outside of the 
owner's or operator's control that occurs in the five business days 
prior to the reporting deadline. The claim must then be approved by the 
Administrator, and in approving such a claim, the

[[Page 15623]]

Administrator agrees that something outside the control of the owner or 
operator prevented the owner or operator from meeting its reporting 
obligation. In no circumstance does this electronic reporting extension 
allow for the owner or operator to be out of compliance with the 
underlying emissions standards. If the Administrator determines that a 
facility has not acted in good faith to reasonably report in a timely 
manner, the Administrator can reject the claim and find that the 
failure to report timely is a deviation from the regulation. CEDRI 
system outages are infrequent, but the EPA knows when they occur and 
whether a facility's claim is legitimate. Force majeure events (e.g., 
natural disasters impacting a facility) are also usually well-known 
events.
    Finally, EPA disagrees that the existing statistics on the use of 
CEDRI and e-reporting precludes the need for a provision to account for 
an outage of the CEDRI system. Prudent management of electronic data 
systems builds in allowances for unexpected, non-routine delays, such 
as occurred on July 1, 2016 and October 20-23, 2017, and is consistent 
with the already-existing provisions afforded for unexpected, non-
routine delays in performance testing [see 40 CFR 60.8(a)(1) and (2) 
and 40 CFR 63.7(a)(4)]. For both electronic reporting and performance 
testing, owners or operators are to conduct and complete their 
activities within a short window of time; the EPA believes it is 
prudent to allow owners or operators to make force majeure claims for 
situations beyond their reasonable control. The EPA also disagrees that 
incidental issues with questions on completing the form or the 
procedures for accessing CEDRI for which the CEDRI Helpdesk is 
available, are conditions that would be considered either force majeure 
or a CEDRI system outage. The existence of the Helpdesk for answering 
questions on procedures in submitting reports to CEDRI have no impact 
on the availability of CEDRI in such a circumstance. The purpose of 
these requests for extensions are to accommodate owners and operators 
in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report electronically 
for reasons that are beyond their control and occur during a short 
window of time prior to the reporting deadline. The extension is not 
automatic, and the Administrator retains the right to accept or reject 
the request. The language was added as part of the standard electronic 
reporting language based on numerous comments received on the proposal 
for the Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the New 
Source Performance Standards (80 FR 15100). As such, we have determined 
that no changes to the electronic reporting requirements are necessary 
in the final rule.
    Additional comments on the proposed electronic reporting 
requirements and other amendments and our specific responses to those 
comments can be found in the memorandum titled Summary of Public 
Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for Solvent 
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production, available in the docket for 
this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the other amendments for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil 
Production source category?
    We evaluated the comment on the EPA's proposed amendments to 
require electronic reporting initial notifications, initial startup 
reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, and 
performance test reports. For the reasons explained in the proposed 
rule, we determined that these amendments increase the ease and 
efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility. More 
information concerning the proposed requirement for owners and 
operators of vegetable oil production facilities to submit electronic 
copies of certain notifications and reports is in the preamble to the 
proposed rule (84 FR 30830, June 27, 2019) and the document, Summary of 
Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for 
the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production, available in the 
docket for this action. Therefore, we are finalizing our approach for 
submission of initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual 
compliance certifications, deviation reports, and performance test 
reports as proposed.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional 
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected facilities?

    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 final 
amendments. The basis of our estimate of affected facilities is 
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. We 
additionally anticipate one new source per year. The EPA received 
comment on the proposed rule that some larger facilities may have 
significant modifications about once a year, therefore, we assume that 
eight existing vegetable oil production facilities may have a 
significant modification that could meet the revised requirements for 
initial startup periods.

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.\4\ Because the EPA is not revising the emission limits, we 
do not anticipate any quantifiable air quality impacts as a result of 
these amendments. However, we anticipate that the final requirements, 
including the work practice standards for the optional initial startup 
period, are at least as stringent as the current rule requirements. The 
work practice standards include requirements for facilities to operate 
controls, including the mineral oil absorption system and solvent 
condensers, at all times during the initial startup period. Facilities 
must also establish and follow site-specific operating ranges for 
temperature and vacuum for the desolventizing and oil distillation 
units associated with solvent recovery. We anticipate these 
requirements will minimize emissions during these periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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 final amendments, and one additional new source per year, 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 costs associated with the final requirements 
are estimated to total $93,100 over the 3 years following promulgation 
of amendments (or $31,033 per year). The EPA believes that the 
vegetable oil production facilities that are known to be subject to the 
NESHAP can meet the final requirements without incurring additional 
capital or operational costs. Therefore, the only costs associated with 
the final amendments include a one-time burden for reviewing 
requirements of the amended rule, and a one-time burden associated with 
recordkeeping and reporting labor costs for initial startup periods for 
new, reconstructed, or significantly modified

[[Page 15624]]

facilities. The EPA assumed in the proposed rule that one potential new 
or reconstructed vegetable oil production facility would be subject to 
the revised requirements for initial startup periods each year. 
However, we received comment on the proposed rule that some larger 
facilities may have significant modifications about once a year. 
Therefore, we have revised the costs associated with the final rule to 
assume that approximately eight existing vegetable oil production 
facilities (or approximately 10 percent of existing facilities) may 
have a significant modification that could require that they meet the 
revised requirements for initial startup periods. The revised 
assumption results in an increase in the total nationwide annual costs 
associated with the final requirements to account for the additional 
facilities anticipated to have a significant modification (actual costs 
per facility have not changed). For further information on the costs 
and cost savings associated with the final requirements, see the 
memorandum, Cost for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil 
Production Source Category Risk and Technology Review--Final 
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.

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 
final 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 final rule. The total costs associated with the final 
rule are estimated to be $93,100 (or $31,033 per year) for the 3 years 
following the final rule. This includes a one-time burden for reviewing 
requirements of the amended rule, and a one-time burden associated with 
the recordkeeping and reporting for initial startup periods for new, 
reconstructed, or significantly modified facilities. This is an 
estimated average cost of approximately $345 per year 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 quantifiable reductions in HAP 
emissions as a result of the final amendments, we believe that the 
action will result in improvements to the rule. Specifically, the final 
amendments revise the standards such that they apply at all times. For 
facilities that choose to operate under an initial startup period, the 
EPA is finalizing an alternative work practice standard that will 
ensure that facilities are operating controls and minimizing emissions 
while the source operates under non-steady state production, which we 
expect will protect public health and the environment through better 
compliance during these periods. Additionally, the final amendments 
requiring electronic submittal of initial notifications, initial 
startup reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, 
and performance test results will streamline reporting for affected 
sources, increase the usefulness of the data and improve data 
accessibility for the public, 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 the preamble 
to the proposed rule for more information.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, 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 kilometers (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. When examining 
the risk levels of those exposed to emissions from solvent extraction 
for vegetable oil production facilities, we found 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 documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of 
the preamble to the proposed rule and the technical report titled Risk 
and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations 
Living Near Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production, which is 
available in the docket for this action.

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    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 summarized in 
section IV.A of this preamble and are further documented in the risk 
report, Residual Risk Assessment for the Solvent Extraction for 
Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk 
and Technology Review Final Rule, available in the docket for this 
action.

VI. 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 Orders 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 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

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

    This action is not 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 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 1947.09. You can find a copy of the ICR in the 
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The 
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB 
approves them.
    The EPA is finalizing amendments that revise provisions pertaining 
to emissions during periods of SSM; add requirements for electronic 
reporting of certain notifications and reports and performance test 
results; and make other minor clarifications and corrections. This 
information will be collected to assure compliance with the Solvent

[[Page 15625]]

Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of vegetable oil 
production processes.
    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 34,100 hours. Of these, 448 hours (per year) is the incremental 
burden to comply with the final 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 
$3,490,000 (per year), including $0 annualized capital or operation and 
maintenance costs. Of the total, $31,033 (per year) is the incremental 
cost to comply with the final amendments to the rule, or approximately 
$345 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. When OMB 
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the 
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to 
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection 
activities contained in this 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 final rule, may experience an 
impact of less than 1 percent of revenues. See section V.D of this 
preamble for additional information on the economic impacts of this 
action.

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. None of the solvent extraction for vegetable oil 
production facilities that have been identified as being affected by 
this final action are owned or operated by tribal governments or 
located within tribal lands. 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 the EPA 
does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks 
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. 
This action's health and risk assessments are contained in sections 
IV.A of this preamble and the document, Residual Risk Assessment for 
the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category in 
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, which is 
available in the docket for this rulemaking.

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 rulemaking involves technical standards. As discussed in the 
preamble of the proposal, the EPA conducted searches for the Solvent 
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Sector Risk and Technology 
Review through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network Database 
managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 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 D6438 (1999), CARB Method 310)) 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 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of 
this preamble and in the technical report, Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Vegetable 
Oil Production Facilities, available in the docket for this action.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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


[[Page 15626]]


    Dated: February 25, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA is amending 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.........  September 15, 2020.
(b) a new source.....................  you startup your         April 12, 2004.........  September 15, 2020.
                                        affected source before
                                        April 12, 2001.
(c) a new source.....................  you startup your         your startup date......  September 15, 2020.
                                        affected source on or
                                        after April 12, 2001,
                                        but before March 18,
                                        2020.
(d) a new source.....................  you startup your         your startup date......  your startup date.
                                        affected source on or
                                        after March 18, 2020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Section 63.2840 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text and paragraphs (a)(1) introductory 
text and (b) introductory text;
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(1);
0
c Revising paragraphs (b)(3) through (5); and
0
d. 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), 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 September 15, 2020, 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 September 15, 2020.
* * * * *
    (g) On or after September 15, 2020, 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 September 15, 2020, 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

[[Page 15627]]

(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 paragraph (a)(3) and paragraph (a)(5) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(iv);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b), (c)(1) and (2), (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 
September 15, 2020, 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 September 15, 
2020, 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 
September 15, 2020, 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 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 September 15, 2020.
* * * * *
    (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 September
                                                          15, 2020, for
                                         For initial       malfunction
 Are you required    For periods of    startup periods   periods subject
     to . . .            normal        subject to Sec.       to Sec.
                     operation? \a\     63.2850(c)(2)    63.2850(e)(2)?
                                         or (d)(2)?            \a\
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a)(1) Operate and  Yes.              Yes, you are      Yes, you are
 maintain your       Additionally,     required to       required to
 source in           the HAP           minimize          minimize
 accordance with     emission limits   emissions to      emissions to
 general duty        will apply.       the extent        the extent
 provisions of                         practicable       practicable
 Sec.   63.6(e)                        throughout the    throughout the
 before September                      initial startup   initial startup
 15, 2020?                             period. Such      period. Such
                                       measures should   measures should
                                       be described in   be described in
                                       the SSM plan.     the SSM plan.

[[Page 15628]]

 
(a)(2) Operate and  No, you must      No, you must
 maintain your       meet the          meet the
 source in           requirements of   requirements of
 accordance with     Sec.              Sec.
 general duty        63.2840(g).       63.2840(g).
 provisions of       Additionally,
 Sec.   63.6(e) on   the HAP
 and after           emission limits
 September 15,       will apply.
 2020?
(b) Determine and   Yes, as           Yes, as           Yes, as
 record the          described in      described in      described in
 extraction          Sec.   63.2853.   Sec.              Sec.
 solvent loss in                       63.2862(e)        63.2862(e).
 gallons from your                     (before
 source?                               September 15,
                                       2020) and Sec.
                                        63.2862(f) (on
                                       and after
                                       September 15,
                                       2020).
(c) Record the      Yes.............  Yes.............  Yes.
 volume fraction
 of HAP present at
 greater than 1
 percent by volume
 and gallons of
 extraction
 solvent in
 shipment
 received?
(d) Determine and   Yes, as           No..............  No.
 record the tons     described in
 of each oilseed     Sec.   63.2855.
 type processed by
 your source?
(e) Determine the   Yes.............  No. Except for    No, the HAP
 weighted average                      solvent           volume fraction
 volume fraction                       received by a     in any solvent
 of HAP in                             new or            received during
 extraction                            reconstructed     a malfunction
 solvent received                      source            period is
 as described in                       commencing        included in the
 Sec.   63.2854 by                     operation under   weighted
 the end of the                        an initial        average HAP
 following                             startup period,   determination
 calendar month?                       the HAP volume    for the next
                                       fraction in any   operating
                                       solvent           month.
                                       received during
                                       an initial
                                       startup period
                                       is included in
                                       the weighted
                                       average HAP
                                       determination
                                       for the next
                                       operating month.
(f) Determine and   Yes.............  No, these         No, these
 record the actual                     requirements      requirements
 solvent loss,                         are not           are not
 weighted average                      applicable        applicable
 volume fraction                       because your      because your
 HAP, oilseed                          source is not     source is not
 processed and                         required to       required to
 compliance ratio                      determine the     determine the
 for each 12                           compliance        compliance
 operating month                       ratio with data   ratio with data
 period as                             recorded for an   recorded for a
 described in Sec.                     initial startup   malfunction
   63.2840 by the                      period.           period.
 end of the
 following
 calendar month?
(g) Submit a        Yes, as           No. However, you  No. However, you
 Notification of     described in      may be required   may be required
 Compliance Status   Sec.  Sec.        to submit an      to submit an
 or Annual           63.2860(d) and    annual            annual
 Compliance          63.2861(a).       compliance        compliance
 Certification as                      certification     certification
 appropriate?                          for previous      for previous
                                       operating         operating
                                       months, if the    months, if the
                                       deadline for      deadline for
                                       the annual        the annual
                                       compliance        compliance
                                       certification     certification
                                       happens to        happens to
                                       occur during      occur during
                                       the initial       the malfunction
                                       startup period.   period.
(h)(1) Submit a     Yes.............  No, these         No, these
 Deviation                             requirements      requirements
 Notification                          are not           are not
 Report by the end                     applicable        applicable
 of the calendar                       because your      because your
 month following                       source is not     source is not
 the month in                          required to       required to
 which you                             determine the     determine the
 determined that                       compliance        compliance
 the compliance                        ratio with data   ratio with data
 ratio exceeds                         recorded for an   recorded for a
 1.00 as described                     initial startup   malfunction
 in Sec.                               period.           period.
 63.2861(b) before
 September 15,
 2020?
(h)(2) Submit a     Yes.............  Yes.............  No.
 Deviation
 Notification
 Report as
 described in Sec.
   63.2861(b) on
 and after
 September 15,
 2020?
(i) Submit a        No, a SSM         Yes, before       Yes.
 Periodic SSM        activity is not   September 15,
 Report as           categorized as    2020.
 described in Sec.   normal
   63.2861(c)?       operation.
(j) Submit an       No, a SSM         Yes, only before  Yes, only if
 Immediate SSM       activity is not   September 15,     your source
 Report as           categorized as    2020 and if       does not follow
 described in Sec.   normal            your source       the SSM plan.
   63.2861(d)?       operation.        does not follow
                                       the SSM plan.
(k) Submit an       No..............  Yes.............  No.
 Initial Startup
 Report as
 described in Sec.
   63.2861(e) on
 and after
 September 15,
 2020?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Beginning on September 15, 2020, 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 September 15, 2020.


[[Page 15629]]


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 September 15, 2020, 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 September 15, 2020, 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 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 
September 15, 2020.

0
7. Section 63.2853 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2) introductory text;
0
b. Revising the heading for Table 1 of Sec.  63.2853 in paragraph 
(a)(2);
0
c. Adding Table 2 of Sec.  63.2853(a)(2) to paragraph (a)(2); and
0
d. Revising paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(5)(i), and (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(a)(2)--Categorizing Your Source Operating
                    Status Before September 15, 2020
 
 

* * * * *

   Table 2 of Sec.   63.2853(a)(2)--Categorizing Your Source Operating
                 Status On and After September 15, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Then your source operating
  If during a recorded time interval . . .         status is . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(vi) Your source processes any amount of     A normal operating period.
 listed oilseed and source is not operating
 under an initial startup operating period
 subject to Sec.   63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2).
(vii) Your source processes no agricultural  A nonoperating period.
 product and your source is not operating
 under an initial startup period subject to
 Sec.   63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2).
(viii) You choose to operate your source     An initial startup period.
 under an initial startup period subject to
 Sec.   63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2).
(ix) Your source processes agricultural      An exempt period.
 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

[[Page 15630]]

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 September 15, 2020, 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 September 15, 2020, 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 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 September 15, 2020, 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 September 15, 2020, the number of deviations and 
for each deviation the date and duration of each deviation. Flag and 
provide an explanation for any deviation from the compliance ratio for 
which a deviation report is being submitted for more than one 
consecutive month (i.e., include a reference to the original date and 
reporting of the deviation). If the explanation provides that 
corrective actions have returned the affected unit(s) to its normal 
operation, you are not required to include the items in paragraphs 
(b)(6) and (7) of this section.
    (6) Beginning on September 15, 2020, a statement of the cause of 
each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable).
    (7) Beginning on September 15, 2020, 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 
September 15, 2020, 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 September 15, 2020.
* * * * *
    (d) Immediate SSM reports. Before September 15, 2020, 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

[[Page 15631]]

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 September 15, 2020.
* * * * *
    (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 September 15, 2020, 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) Performance tests. On and after September 15, 2020, 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) Submitting reports electronically. On and after September 15, 
2020, 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 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) Claims of EPA system outage. 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) Claims of force majeure. 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

[[Page 15632]]

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 paragraph (b) and paragraph (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 September 15, 2020, 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 September 15, 2020, 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, 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 September 15, 2020, 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 September 15, 2020.
* * * * *
    (f) On and after September 15, 2020, 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 September 15, 2020, 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 and duration of each 
deviation. For deviations from the compliance ratio, the date of the 
deviation is the date the compliance ratio determination is made. The 
duration of the deviation from the compliance ratio is the length of 
time taken to address the cause of the deviation, including the 
duration of any malfunction, and return the affected unit(s) to its 
normal or usual manner of operation. For deviations from the work 
practice standard during the initial startup period, the date of the 
deviation is the date(s) when the facility fails to comply with any of 
the work practice standard in Sec.  63.2840(h). The duration of the 
deviation from the work practice standard is the length of time taken 
to return to the work practice standards.
    (2) A statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown 
cause, if applicable).
    (3) 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.
    (4) 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.
    (5) 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?

* * * * *

[[Page 15633]]



     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      Applies to
  General provisions citation         citation        of requirement        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 specifically
                                                     part 63                               provided in this
                                                     standards.                            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 subsections
                                  reconstruction.    applications;                         of Sec.   63.5 as
                                                     approvals.                            listed below.
Sec.   63.5(c).................  [Reserved].......
Sec.   63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H).......  Application for    Type and quantity  No...............  All sources emit HAP.
                                  approval.          of HAP,                               Subpart GGGG does not
                                                     operating                             require control from
                                                     parameters.                           specific emission
                                                                                           points.
Sec.   63.5(d)(1)(ii)(I).......  [Reserved].......
Sec.   63.5(d)(1)(iii), (d)(2),                     Application for    No...............  The requirements of
 (d)(3)(ii).                                         approval.                             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 subsections
                                  General                                                  of Sec.   63.6 as
                                  Provisions.                                              listed below.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(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)-(4)..........  [Reserved].......
Sec.   63.6(d).................  [Reserved].......
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)...........  Operation and      .................  Yes, before        See Sec.   63.2840(g)
                                  Maintenance.                          September 15,      for general duty
                                                                        2020. No, on or    requirement
                                                                        after September
                                                                        15, 2020.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)..........  Operation and      Requirement to     Yes, before        See Sec.   63.2840(g)
                                  Maintenance.       correct            September 15,      for general duty
                                                     malfunctions as    2020]. No, on or   requirement.
                                                     soon as            after September
                                                     practicable.       15, 2020.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(i) through     Operation and      .................  Yes, before        Minimize emissions to
 (e)(3)(ii) and Sec.              maintenance                           September 15,      the extent
 63.6(e)(3)(v) through (vii).     requirements.                         2020.              practicable. On or
                                                                                           after September 15,
                                                                                           2020, see Sec.
                                                                                           63.2840(g) for
                                                                                           general duty
                                                                                           requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(iii).........  Operation and      .................  No...............  Minimize emissions to
                                  maintenance                                              the extent
                                  requirements.                                            practicable. On or
                                                                                           after September 15,
                                                                                           2020, 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 Sec.
                                  requirements.                                             63.2861(c) and (d).

[[Page 15634]]

 
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(viii)........  Operation and      .................  Yes, before        Except, before
                                  maintenance                           September 15,      September 15, 2020,
                                  requirements.                         2020. No, on or    report each revision
                                                                        after September    to your SSM plan in
                                                                        15, 2020.          accordance with Sec.
                                                                                            63.2861(c) 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
                                                                        September 15,
                                                                        2020. No, on or
                                                                        after September
                                                                        15, 2020.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)..............  Compliance with    Comply with        Yes, before
                                  nonopacity         emission           September 15,
                                  emission           standards at all   2020. No, on or
                                  standards except   times except       after September
                                  during SSM.        during SSM.        15, 2020.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(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 no
                                  emission (VE)                                            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        See Sec.
                                  testing            conditions for     September 15,      63.2853(a)(5)(i)(A)
                                  requirements.      performance test.  2020. No, on or    for performance
                                                                        after September    testing requirements.
                                                                        15, 2020.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(4), (f),      Performance        Schedule,          Yes..............  Subpart GGGG requires
 (g), and (h).                    testing            conditions,                           performance testing
                                  requirements.      notifications                         only if the source
                                                     and procedures.                       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 not
                                  requirements.                                            require monitoring
                                                                                           other than as
                                                                                           specified therein.
Sec.   63.9....................  Notification       Applicability and  Yes..............  Except for subsections
                                  requirements.      state delegation.                     of Sec.   63.9 as
                                                                                           listed below.
Sec.   63.9(b)(2)..............  Notification       Initial            No...............  Section 63.2860(a) of
                                  requirements.      notification                          subpart GGGG
                                                     requirements for                      specifies the
                                                     existing sources.                     requirements of the
                                                                                           initial notification
                                                                                           for existing sources.
Sec.   63.9(b)(3)-(5)..........  Notification       Notification       Yes..............  Except the information
                                  requirements.      requirement for                       requirements differ
                                                     certain new/                          as described in Sec.
                                                     reconstructed                          63.2860(b) of
                                                     sources.                              subpart GGGG.
Sec.   63.9(e).................  Notification of    Notify             Yes..............  Applies only if
                                  performance test.  responsible                           performance testing
                                                     agency 60 days                        is performed.
                                                     ahead.
Sec.   63.9(f).................  Notification of    Notify             No...............  Subpart GGGG has no
                                  VE/opacity         responsible                           opacity or VE
                                  observations.      agency 30 days                        standards.
                                                     ahead.
Sec.   63.9(g).................  Additional         Notification of    No...............  Subpart GGGG has no
                                  notifications      performance                           CMS requirements.
                                  when using a       evaluation;
                                  continuous         Notification
                                  monitoring         using COMS data;
                                  system (CMS).      notification
                                                     that exceeded
                                                     criterion for
                                                     relative
                                                     accuracy.

[[Page 15635]]

 
Sec.   63.9(h).................  Notification of    Contents.........  No...............  Section 63.2860(d) of
                                  compliance                                               subpart GGGG
                                  status.                                                  specifies
                                                                                           requirements for the
                                                                                           notification of
                                                                                           compliance status.
Sec.   63.10...................  Recordkeeping/     Schedule for       Yes..............  Except for subsections
                                  reporting.         reporting,                            of Sec.   63.10 as
                                                     record storage.                       listed below.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)..........  Recordkeeping....  Record SSM event.  Yes, before        Before September 15,
                                                                        September 15,      2020, applicable to
                                                                        2020. No, on or    periods when sources
                                                                        after September    must implement their
                                                                        15, 2020.          SSM plan as specified
                                                                                           in subpart GGGG. On
                                                                                           or after September
                                                                                           15, 2020, meet the
                                                                                           requirements of Sec.
                                                                                            63.2862(f).
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii)-(iii)...  Recordkeeping....  Malfunction of     No...............  Before September 15,
                                                     air pollution                         2020, applies only if
                                                     equipment.                            air pollution control
                                                                                           equipment has been
                                                                                           added to the process
                                                                                           and is necessary for
                                                                                           the source to meet
                                                                                           the emission limit.
                                                                                           On or after September
                                                                                           15, 2020, meet the
                                                                                           requirements of Sec.
                                                                                            63.2862(g).
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v).....  Recordkeeping....  SSM recordkeeping  Yes, before
                                                                        September 15,
                                                                        2020. No, on or
                                                                        after September
                                                                        15, 2020.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi).........  Recordkeeping....  CMS recordkeeping  No...............  Subpart GGGG has no
                                                                                           CMS requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(viii)-(ix)..  Recordkeeping....  Conditions of      Yes..............  Applies only if
                                                     performance test.                     performance tests are
                                                                                           performed. Subpart
                                                                                           GGGG does not have
                                                                                           any CMS opacity or VE
                                                                                           observation
                                                                                           requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(x)-(xii)....  Recordkeeping....  CMS, performance   No...............  Subpart GGGG does not
                                                     testing, and                          require CMS.
                                                     opacity and VE
                                                     observations
                                                     recordkeeping.
Sec.   63.10(c)................  Recordkeeping....  Additional CMS     No...............  Subpart GGGG does not
                                                     recordkeeping.                        require CMS.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2).............  Reporting........  Reporting          Yes..............  Applies only if
                                                     performance test                      performance testing
                                                     results.                              is performed.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3).............  Reporting........  Reporting opacity  No...............  Subpart GGGG has no
                                                     or VE                                 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 not
                                                     reports.                              require CMS.
Sec.   63.11...................  Control device     Requirements for   Yes..............  Applies only if your
                                  requirements.      flares.                               source uses a flare
                                                                                           to control solvent
                                                                                           emissions. Subpart
                                                                                           GGGG does not require
                                                                                           flares.
Sec.   63.12...................  State authority    State authority    Yes..............
                                  and delegations.   to 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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


Sec.  63.2872  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *

[[Page 15636]]

    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 September 15, 2020, 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 
September 15, 2020, 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 September 15, 2020, 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 September 15, 2020, 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. 2020-04459 Filed 3-17-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

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