15608 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (CBI) or other information whose HQ hazard quotient AGENCY disclosure is restricted by statute. ICR Information Collection Request Certain other material, such as km kilometer 40 CFR Part 63 copyrighted material, is not placed on MACT maximum achievable control technology [EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0208; FRL–10006–06– the internet and will be publicly MIR maximum individual risk OAR] available only in hard copy form. NAICS North American Industry Publicly available docket materials are Classification System RIN 2060–AU17 available either electronically through NESHAP national emission standards for https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard hazardous air pollutants National Emission Standards for copy at the EPA Docket Center, WJC NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Hazardous Air Pollutants: Solvent West Building, Room Number 3334, Advancement Act Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, OMB Office of Management and Budget Residual Risk and Technology Review Washington, DC. The Public Reading PRA Paperwork Reduction Act Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. REL reference exposure level AGENCY: Environmental Protection RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act Agency (EPA). to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time RTR residual risk and technology review ACTION: Final rule. (EST), Monday through Friday. The SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction telephone number for the Public the Court United States Court of Appeals SUMMARY: This action finalizes the Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and for the District of Columbia Circuit residual risk and technology review the telephone number for the EPA TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index (RTR) conducted for the Solvent Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. tpy tons per year Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act source category regulated under questions about this final action, contact VCS voluntary consensus standards national emission standards for Mr. Bill Schrock, Natural Resources Background information. On June 27, hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). Group, Sector Policies and Programs 2019, the EPA proposed revisions to the Based on the results of the U.S. Division (E143–03), Office of Air Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Environmental Protection Agency’s Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Production NESHAP in conjunction (EPA’s) risk review, the Agency is Environmental Protection Agency, with our RTR for the Solvent Extraction finalizing the decision that risks due to Research Triangle Park, North Carolina for Vegetable Oil Production source emissions of air toxics from this source 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– category (84 FR 30812). In this action, category are acceptable and that the 5032; fax number: (919) 541–0516; and we are finalizing decisions and current NESHAP provides an ample email address: [email protected]. For revisions for the rule. We summarize margin of safety to protect public health. specific information regarding the risk some of the more significant comments Under the technology review, the EPA modeling methodology, contact Mr. we timely received regarding the is finalizing the decision that there are Matthew Woody, Health and proposed rule and provide our no developments in practices, Environmental Impacts Division (C539– responses in this preamble. A summary processes, or control technologies that 02), Office of Air Quality Planning and of all other public comments on the necessitate revision of the standards. Standards, U.S. Environmental proposal and the EPA’s responses to Therefore, the EPA is finalizing no Protection Agency, Research Triangle those comments is available in the revisions to the numerical emission Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone Summary of Public Comments and limits based on the risk and technology number: (919) 541–1535; fax number: Responses for the Risk and Technology reviews. We are taking final action to (919) 541–0840; and email address: Review for Solvent Extraction For correct and clarify regulatory provisions [email protected]. For Vegetable Oil Production, in Docket ID related to emissions during periods of information about the applicability of No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0208. A startup, shutdown, and malfunction the NESHAP to a particular entity, ‘‘track changes’’ version of the (SSM), including removing general contact Ms. Maria Malave, Office of regulatory language that incorporates exemptions for periods of SSM, adding Enforcement and Compliance the changes in this action is available in alternative work practice standards for Assurance, U.S. Environmental the docket. periods of initial startup for new or Protection Agency, WJC South Building Organization of this document. The significantly modified sources, and (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania information in this preamble is making other minor clarifications or Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; organized as follows: corrections. The EPA is also taking final telephone number: (202) 564–7027; and I. General Information action to add provisions for electronic email address: [email protected]. A. Does this action apply to me? reporting of certain notifications and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: B. Where can I get a copy of this document reports and performance test results; Preamble acronyms and and other related information? and make other minor clarifications and abbreviations. We use multiple C. Judicial Review and Administrative corrections. These final amendments acronyms and terms in this preamble. Reconsideration will result in improved compliance and While this list may not be exhaustive, to II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this implementation of the rule. ease the reading of this preamble and for action? DATES: This final rule is effective on reference purposes, the EPA defines the B. What is the Solvent Extraction for March 18, 2020. following terms and acronyms here: Vegetable Oil Production source category ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a CAA Clean Air Act and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP docket for this action under Docket ID CBI Confidential Business Information emissions from the source category? No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0208. All CDX Central Data Exchange C. What changes did we propose for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil documents in the docket are listed on CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface Production source category in our June the https://www.regulations.gov/ CFR Code of Federal Regulations 27, 2019, RTR proposal? website. Although listed, some EPA Environmental Protection Agency III. What is included in this final rule? information is not publicly available, HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) A. What are the final rule amendments e.g., Confidential Business Information HI hazard index based on the risk review for the Solvent

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 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 15609

Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Vegetable Oil Production Source G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation source category? Category and Coordination with Indian Tribal B. What are the final rule amendments V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Governments based on the technology review for the Economic Impacts and Additional H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Analyses Conducted Children From Environmental Health Production source category? A. What are the affected sources? C. What are the final rule amendments Risks and Safety Risks B. What are the air quality impacts? I. Executive Order 13211: Actions addressing emissions during periods of C. What are the cost impacts? Concerning Regulations That SSM? D. What are the economic impacts? Significantly Affect Energy Supply, D. What other changes have been made to E. What are the benefits? the NESHAP? F. What analysis of environmental justice Distribution, or Use E. What are the effective and compliance did we conduct? J. National Technology Transfer and dates of the standards? G. What analysis of children’s Advancement Act (NTTAA) IV. What is the rationale for our final K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions decisions and amendments for the environmental health did we conduct? to Address Environmental Justice in Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Production source category? A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Minority Populations and Low-Income A. Residual Risk Review for the Solvent Planning and Review and Executive Populations Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Order 13563: Improving Regulation and L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) Source Category Regulatory Review B. Technology Review for the Solvent B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing I. General Information Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Regulations and Controlling Regulatory A. Does this action apply to me? Source Category Costs C. SSM for the Solvent Extraction for C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Regulated entities. Categories and D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Vegetable Oil Production Source entities potentially regulated by this Category E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act D. Technical amendments to the MACT (UMRA) action are shown in Table 1 of this standards for the Solvent Extraction for F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 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 Blending ...... 311225 Other Animal Food Manufacturing ...... Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production ...... 311119 Soybean and Other Oilseed Processing ...... 311224 Fats and Oils Refining and Blending ...... 311225 a North American Industry Classification System.

Table 1 of this preamble is not Register version and key technical period for public comment (including intended to be exhaustive, but rather to documents at this same website. any public hearing) may be raised provide a guide for readers regarding Additional information is available on during judicial review. This section also entities likely to be affected by the final the RTR website at https:// provides a mechanism for the EPA to action for the source category listed. To www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air- reconsider the rule if the person raising determine whether your facility is pollution/risk-and-technology-review- an objection can demonstrate to the affected, you should examine the national-emissions-standards- Administrator that it was impracticable applicability criteria in the appropriate hazardous. This information includes to raise such objection within the period NESHAP. If you have any questions an overview of the RTR program and for public comment or if the grounds for regarding the applicability of any aspect links to project websites for the RTR such objection arose after the period for of this NESHAP, please contact the source categories. public comment (but within the time appropriate person listed in the C. Judicial Review and Administrative specified for judicial review) and if such preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Reconsideration objection is of central relevance to the CONTACT section of this preamble. outcome of the rule. Any person seeking Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section to make such a demonstration should B. Where can I get a copy of this 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final submit a Petition for Reconsideration to document and other related action is available only by filing a the Office of the Administrator, U.S. information? petition for review in the United States EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, Court of Appeals for the District of 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, In addition to being available in the Columbia Circuit (the Court) by May 18, docket, an electronic copy of this final 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to action will also be available on the requirements established by this final both the person(s) listed in the internet. Following signature by the rule may not be challenged separately in preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a any civil or criminal proceedings CONTACT section, and the Associate copy of this final action at: https:// brought by the EPA to enforce the General Counsel for the Air and www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air- requirements. Radiation Law Office, Office of General pollution/solvent-extraction-vegetable- Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, oil-production-national-emission. further provides that only an objection 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Following publication in the Federal to a rule or procedure which was raised Washington, DC 20460. Register, the EPA will post the Federal with reasonable specificity during the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 15610 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

II. Background environmental impacts, and energy 1 of 40 CFR 63.2840 through direct requirements. contact with an organic solvent. Process A. What is the statutory authority for In the second stage of the regulatory equipment typically includes the this action? process, the CAA requires the EPA to following components: oilseed Section 112 of the CAA establishes a undertake two different analyses, which preparation operations (including two-stage regulatory process to address we refer to as the technology review and conditioning, drying, dehulling, and emissions of hazardous air pollutants the residual risk review. Under the cracking), solvent extractors, (HAP) from stationary sources. In the technology review, we must review the desolventizer-toasters, meal dryers, first stage, we must identify categories technology-based standards and revise meal coolers, meal conveyor systems, of sources emitting one or more of the them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account oil distillation units, solvent evaporators HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and developments in practices, processes, and condensers, solvent recovery then promulgate technology-based and control technologies)’’ no less system (also referred to as a mineral oil NESHAP for those sources. ‘‘Major frequently than every 8 years, pursuant absorption system), vessels storing sources’’ are those that emit, or have the to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the solvent-laden materials, and crude meal potential to emit, any single HAP at a residual risk review, we must evaluate packaging and storage vessels. A rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, the risk to public health remaining after vegetable oil production process does or 25 tpy or more of any combination of application of the technology-based not include vegetable oil refining HAP. For major sources, these standards standards and revise the standards, if operations (including operations such as are commonly referred to as maximum necessary, to provide an ample margin bleaching, hydrogenation, and achievable control technology (MACT) of safety to protect public health or to deodorizing) and operations that engage standards and must reflect the prevent, taking into consideration costs, in additional chemical treatment of maximum degree of emission reductions energy, safety, and other relevant crude soybean meals produced in of HAP achievable (after considering factors, an adverse environmental effect. specialty desolventizer units (including cost, energy requirements, and non-air The residual risk review is required operations such as soybean isolate quality health and environmental within 8 years after promulgation of the production). The source category impacts). In developing MACT technology-based standards, pursuant to covered by this MACT standard standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs CAA section 112(f). In conducting the currently includes 89 facilities. the EPA to consider the application of residual risk review, if the EPA The primary HAP emitted from measures, processes, methods, systems, determines that the current standards vegetable oil production processes is n- or techniques, including, but not limited provide an ample margin of safety to hexane. The EPA does not consider n- to, those that reduce the volume of or protect public health, it is not necessary hexane classifiable as a human eliminate HAP emissions through to revise the MACT standards pursuant carcinogen. However, short-term process changes, substitution of to CAA section 112(f).1 For more exposure to n-hexane can cause materials, or other modifications; information on the statutory authority reactions such as irritation, dizziness, enclose systems or processes to for this rule, see 84 FR 30812, June 27, headaches, and nausea. Long-term eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or 2019. exposure can cause permanent nerve treat HAP when released from a process, damage. stack, storage, or fugitive emissions B. What is the Solvent Extraction for The current NESHAP controls facility- point; are design, equipment, work Vegetable Oil Production source wide n-hexane emissions by setting practice, or operational standards; or category and how does the NESHAP emission limitations based on the any combination of the above. regulate HAP emissions from the source number of gallons of HAP lost per ton For these MACT standards, the statute category? of oilseeds processed, expressed as specifies certain minimum stringency The EPA promulgated the Solvent oilseed solvent loss ratios. Facilities requirements, which are referred to as Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production demonstrate compliance by calculating MACT floor requirements, and which NESHAP on April 12, 2001 (66 FR a compliance ratio comparing the actual may not be based on cost considerations 19006). The standards are codified at 40 HAP loss to the allowable HAP loss for (see CAA section 112(d)(3)). For new CFR part 63, subpart GGGG. As the previous 12 operating months. sources, the MACT floor cannot be less promulgated in 2001 and further Allowable HAP loss is based on the stringent than the emission control amended on April 5, 2002 (67 FR oilseed solvent loss ratios provided in achieved in practice by the best- 16317), and September 1, 2004 (69 FR Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2840 of the rule controlled similar source. The MACT 53338), the NESHAP regulates HAP for new and existing sources. standards for existing sources can be emissions from solvent extraction for Compliance is demonstrated when the less stringent than floors for new vegetable oil production processes at a facility’s calculated compliance ratio is sources, but they cannot be less facility that is a major source of HAP less than or equal to 1.00 (i.e., the actual stringent than the average emission emissions. The affected source is each HAP loss is no greater than the limitation achieved by the best- vegetable oil production process. A calculated allowable HAP loss). performing 12 percent of existing vegetable oil production process means Determination of compliance with the sources in the category or subcategory the equipment comprising a continuous requirements of the Solvent Extraction (or the best-performing five sources for process for producing crude vegetable for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP categories or subcategories with fewer oil and meal products, including requires the facility to keep records of than 30 sources). In developing MACT specialty soybean products, in which oil the amount of n-hexane purchased, standards, we must also consider is removed from oilseeds listed in Table used, and recovered from the oilseed control options that are more stringent extraction process, the amount of than the floor under CAA section 1 The Court has affirmed this approach of oilseed processed, and the volume 112(d)(2). We may establish standards implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. fraction of each HAP exceeding 1 more stringent than the floor, based on EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 2008) (‘‘If EPA percent in the extraction solvent used. determines that the existing technology-based the consideration of the cost of standards provide an ‘ample margin of safety,’ then Facilities may also adjust their solvent achieving the emissions reductions, any the Agency is free to readopt those standards during loss to account for cases where solvent non-air quality health and the residual risk rulemaking.’’). is routed through a closed vent system

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 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 15611

to a control device that is used to reduce proposed rule, sources that continue to reports, annual compliance emissions to meet the standard. operate must instead meet the emission certifications, deviation reports, and standard requirements for either a performance test reports; and other C. What changes did we propose for the normal operating period or the work minor editorial and technical changes. Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil practice standards for an initial startup This action reflects several changes to Production source category in our June period (if applicable) in 40 CFR 63.2850 the proposed rule in consideration of 27, 2019, RTR proposal? and Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. In comments received during the public On June 27, 2019, the EPA published proposing the revised standards, the comment period as described in section a proposed rule in the Federal Register EPA considered whether to set separate IV of this preamble. for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable standards for startup and shutdown A. What are the final rule amendments Oil Production NESHAP, 40 CFR part periods, but only found that separate based on the risk review for the Solvent 63, subpart GGGG, that took into standards were necessary for initial Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production consideration the RTR analyses. In the startup periods for new or significantly source category? proposed rule, we proposed that the modified sources. For periods of initial risks from the source category are startup following new construction or This section describes the final risk acceptable and the current standards significant modification, we proposed determination for the Solvent Extraction provide an ample margin of safety to work practice standards and a for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP protect public health. In addition, requirement to establish and follow site- being promulgated pursuant to CAA pursuant to the technology review for specific operating ranges for section 112(f). The EPA proposed no the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil temperature and vacuum for the changes to the Solvent Extraction for Production source category, we desolventizing and oil distillation units Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP proposed no revisions to the current associated with solvent recovery, as based on the risk review conducted standards based on these analyses. well as associated recordkeeping and pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In this We proposed revisions to the SSM reporting requirements (e.g., initial action, we are finalizing our proposed provisions of the standards to ensure startup report) for these periods. determination that risks from this that they are consistent with the Court We proposed to require electronic source category are acceptable, and that decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. reporting of initial notifications, initial the standards provide an ample margin 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Specifically, startup reports, annual compliance of safety to protect public health and the Court vacated the SSM exemption certifications, deviation reports, and prevent an adverse environmental contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 performance test reports through the effect. Section IV.A.3 of this preamble CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) provides a summary of key comments section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions using the Compliance and Emissions we received regarding the risk review standards or limitations must be Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). We and our responses to those comments. continuous in nature and that the SSM also proposed minor clarifications and B. What are the final rule amendments exemption violates the CAA’s corrections to five definitions (i.e., based on the technology review for the requirement that some CAA section 112 ‘‘Compliance ratio,’’ ‘‘Nonoperating Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil standards apply continuously. We period,’’ ‘‘Normal operating period,’’ Production source category? therefore proposed that the standards ‘‘Operating month,’’ and ‘‘Hazardous air would apply at all times, including pollutant (HAP)’’) and to 40 CFR The EPA is finalizing the technology during startups, shutdowns, and 63.2840(a)(1) and (b)(1), 40 CFR review as proposed. We determined that malfunctions (see 40 CFR 63.2840(a) 63.2853(a)(2), 40 CFR 63.2855(a)(3), and there are no developments in practices, and Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870 (General Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. Refer to processes, and control technologies that Provisions Applicability Table). section IV.D of the June 27, 2019, warrant revisions to the MACT Additionally, we proposed to remove proposal preamble for further standards for this source category. requirements that allowed sources to discussion of these proposed Therefore, we are not finalizing previously designate a source operating amendments and the EPA’s rationale for revisions to the MACT standards under status period as a ‘‘malfunction period’’ these changes (84 FR 60825). CAA section 112(d)(6). and exclude data collected during the ‘‘malfunction period’’ when III. What is included in this final rule? C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during periods of determining compliance with the This action finalizes the EPA’s SSM? emission standards.2 Under the determinations pursuant to the RTR provisions of CAA section 112 for the We are finalizing the proposed 2 The 2001 NESHAP allowed for facilities to Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil amendments to the Solvent Extraction determine compliance based on the distinct for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP categorized operating status of the facility (normal Production source category. This action operating, nonoperating, initial startup, also finalizes other changes to the to remove and revise provisions related malfunction, or exempt) during a compliance NESHAP, including revisions to the to SSM. As detailed in section IV.D of period, as defined in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2853. SSM provisions of the MACT rule in the proposal preamble (84 FR 30825), Existing and new sources operating during a the final amendments to the Solvent malfunction period could either meet the order to ensure that they are consistent compliance requirements for normal operation with the Court decision in Sierra Club Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production periods in 40 CFR 63.2850 and Table 1 of 40 CFR v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), NESHAP require that the standards 63.2850 or the requirements for malfunction provisions for electronic reporting of apply at all times (see 40 CFR 63.2840(a) periods subject to 40 CFR 63.2850(e)(2) and Table and Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870 (General 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850 (for which no limits or work initial notifications, initial startup practices applied). Sources operating during a Provisions applicability table), malfunction period were not required to determine CFR 63.2850, such that the standards apply at all consistent with the Court decision in compliance using data recorded for the malfunction times. Sources that continue to operate during a Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. period. We proposed to remove the option for malfunction must continue to meet the general duty Cir. 2008). facilities to categorize the operating period as a requirements at 40 CFR 63.2840(g). The term We are finalizing that the emission malfunction period and to remove the option to ‘‘malfunction period’’ is retained in the rule only meet the requirements for malfunction periods as it applies to facilities prior to September 15, standards for normal operation apply at subject to 40 CFR 63.2850(e)(2) and Table 1 of 40 2020. all times, except for periods of initial

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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 malfunction standard. As further reporting of the deviation). Although a modified sources, as described below in explained at proposal, ‘‘[i]n the event facility would need to retain records of this section and in section IV.C of this that a source fails to comply with the any deviation and the corrective preamble. For periods of initial startup applicable CAA section 112(d) action(s) performed, no additional for new or significantly modified standards as a result of a malfunction corrective action would be required at sources, we are finalizing work practice event, the EPA would determine an the time the 12-month compliance ratio standards, including operation of the appropriate response based on, among is officially exceeded in subsequent mineral oil absorption system and other things, the good faith efforts of the months if the facility demonstrates the solvent condensers at all times during source to minimize emissions during exceedance is from a prior malfunction the initial startup period, and a malfunction periods, including that has been corrected. requirement to establish and follow site- preventive and corrective actions, as As is explained in more detail below, specific operating ranges for well as root cause analyses to ascertain we are finalizing revisions related to temperature and vacuum for the and rectify excess emissions. The EPA requirements that apply during periods desolventizing and oil distillation units would also consider whether the of SSM. We eliminated or revised associated with solvent recovery, as source’s failure to comply with the CAA certain recordkeeping and reporting well as associated recordkeeping and section 112(d) standard was, in fact, requirements related to the eliminated reporting requirements (e.g., initial sudden, infrequent, not reasonably SSM exemption. The EPA also made startup report) for these periods. preventable and was not instead caused changes to the rule to remove or modify Facilities will continue to have the in part by poor maintenance or careless inappropriate, unnecessary, or option to meet the requirements for operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of redundant language in the absence of normal operating periods in Table 1 of malfunction). If the EPA determines in the SSM exemption. Refer to sections 40 CFR 63.2850. The EPA is also a particular case that an enforcement III.C.1 through III.C.6 of this preamble finalizing the definition of ‘‘initial action against a source for violation of for a detailed discussion of the final startup period’’ and the requirements of an emission standard is warranted, the amendments. 40 CFR 62.2850(c)(2) and (d)(2) to source can raise any and all defenses in clarify that the end of the initial startup that enforcement action and the Federal 1. 40 CFR 63.2840 General Duty period occurs when the plant meets and district court will determine what, if We are finalizing as proposed maintains steady-state operations. any, relief is appropriate. The same is revisions to the General Provisions Steady-state is defined as operating at or true for citizen enforcement actions. applicability table (Table 1 to 40 CFR above 90 percent of the extractor Similarly, the presiding officer in an 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) nominal design production rate or at or administrative proceeding can consider by changing the ‘‘Yes’’ in column 4 to above 90 percent of the production rate any defense raised and determine a ‘‘No.’’ The EPA is instead adding in the plant’s permit for 15 consecutive whether administrative penalties are general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR days. Any initial startup period may not appropriate’’ (84 FR 30828). 63.2840(g) to reflect the general duty to exceed 6 calendar months after startup For these reasons, we are not setting minimize emissions while eliminating for new or reconstructed sources or 3 the reference to periods covered by an calendar months after startup for separate standards for periods of SSM exemption. The general duty to modified sources. malfunction. Under the final rule, As discussed in section IV.D of the sources that experience an unscheduled minimize emissions continues to apply June 27, 2019, proposal preamble, the shutdown as a result of a malfunction, during periods of malfunction and EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not continue to operate during a sources must still address malfunctions requiring emissions that occur during malfunction (including the period expeditiously in order to maintain any periods of malfunction to be factored reasonably necessary to correct the affected source, including associated air into development of CAA section 112 malfunction), or start up after a pollution control equipment and standards, although the EPA has the shutdown resulting from a malfunction monitoring equipment, and minimize discretion to set standards for must instead meet the emission emissions. The EPA is also revising the malfunctions where feasible. We noted standard requirements for either a General Provisions applicability table that our interpretation regarding CAA normal operating period or the work (Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 section 112 not requiring emissions that practice standards for an initial startup CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ‘‘Yes’’ occur during periods of malfunction to period (if a new or significantly in column 4 to a ‘‘No’’ to remove be factored into development of CAA modified source) in 40 CFR 63.2850 and requirements that are not necessary with section 112 standards has been upheld Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. Although we the elimination of the SSM exemption as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar did not propose and are not finalizing or are redundant with the general duty Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–610 work practice standards for periods of requirement being added at 40 CFR (2016). The EPA further explained that, malfunction, we are finalizing revisions 63.2840(g). to deviation reporting to account for ‘‘EPA will consider whether 2. SSM Plan circumstances warrant setting standards one-time malfunction events in which for a particular type of malfunction and, the potential solvent loss could result in As proposed, the EPA is revising the if so, whether the EPA has sufficient a deviation for one or more consecutive General Provisions applicability table information to identify the relevant best monthly compliance ratio (Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870) entries for performing sources and establish a determinations. Specifically, we have 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(i) through (e)(3)(ii), 40 standard for such malfunctions’’ (84 FR revised the final rule to include a CFR 63.6(e)(3)(v) through (vii), and 40 30827). requirement that facilities flag and CFR 63.6(e)(3)(viii) and (ix) by changing While we requested comment on provide an explanation for any the ‘‘Yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘No.’’ The work practice standards during periods deviation from the compliance ratio for EPA is also revising 40 CFR 63.2852, of malfunction, and received some which a deviation report is being which cross-references the requirements information in support of such submitted for more than one of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3). The final standards, we did not receive sufficient consecutive month (i.e., include a amendments remove requirements information on which to base a reference to the original date and related to the SSM plan.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 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 15613

3. Compliance With Standards applicable standard’’ (including any instead requiring that existing or new The EPA is revising the General deviation from the emissions standards source owners or operators that fail to Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to of 40 CFR 63.2840 or the work practice meet the applicable emission standards 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR standards for periods of initial startup). (including sources that experience a 63.6(f)(1) by revising the text in column Source owners or operators must record malfunction) or the work practice the date and duration of the ‘‘failure.’’ standards for initial startup periods at 4 and removing the text in column 5 to We have revised the final rule any time must report the information clarify that the SSM exemption requirements from proposal to clarify concerning such events in the deviation previously applied but will not apply how to designate the date a deviation report, including the number, date, going forward. occurred and the duration of the duration, and the cause of such events 4. 40 CFR 63.2853 Performance deviation. For deviations from the (including unknown cause, if Testing compliance ratio, the date of the applicable), a list of the affected source We are also finalizing a revision to the deviation is the date the compliance or equipment, an estimate of the performance testing requirements. The ratio determination is made, and the quantity of HAP emitted over the EPA is revising the General Provisions duration of the deviation is the length emission requirements of 40 CFR of time taken to address the cause of the 63.2840, and a description of the applicability table (Table 1 to 40 CFR deviation (including the duration of any method used to estimate the emissions. 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by malfunction) and to return the affected For sources operating under an initial changing the ‘‘Yes’’ in column 4 to a unit(s) to its normal or usual manner of startup period, the EPA is also finalizing ‘‘No,’’ and adding a revised performance operation. For deviations from the work a provision that source owners or testing requirement at 40 CFR practice standard during the initial operators that fail to meet the work 63.2853(a)(5)(i)(A). The final startup period, the date of the deviation practice standard must include a performance testing provisions prohibit is the date when the facility fails to description of the deviation and include performance testing for purposes of comply with any of the work practice the records for the initial startup period demonstrating compliance during standards in 40 CFR 63.2840(h), and the in 40 CFR 63.2862(f). startup, shutdown, or malfunction duration of the deviation is the length Finally, the EPA is finalizing that because these conditions are not of time taken to return to the work source owners or operators that choose representative of normal operating practice standards. We have also to operate under an initial startup periods. The final rule also requires that removed the requirement to record and period according to 40 CFR operators maintain records to document report the time of the deviation as 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2) must also provide that operating conditions during the test described in section IV.C of this an initial startup report, including a represent normal operations. preamble. compliance certification indicating 5. 40 CFR 63.2862 Recordkeeping The EPA is adding to 40 CFR whether the source was in compliance 63.2862(g) a requirement that source with the work practice standard of 40 The EPA is revising the General owners or operators keep records that CFR 63.2840(h). The initial report must Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to include a statement of the cause of each be submitted within 30 days of the end 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR deviation (including unknown cause, if of the initial startup period. 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ‘‘Yes’’ in applicable), a list of the affected source The legal rationale and detailed column 4 to a ‘‘No,’’ and is adding or equipment and actions taken to changes for SSM periods that we are recordkeeping requirements to 40 CFR minimize emissions, an estimate of the finalizing here are set forth in the 63.2862(f). The final revisions require quantity of each regulated pollutant proposed rule (see 84 FR 30825). owners or operators of sources subject to emitted over the standard when the Section IV.C of this preamble provides a work practice standard during initial standard is not met, and a description a summary of key comments we startup times to report a description and of the method used to estimate the received on the SSM provisions and our dates of the initial startup period, the emissions. responses. reason it qualifies as an initial startup The EPA is revising the General D. What other changes have been made period, an estimate of the solvent loss in Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to to the NESHAP? gallons for the duration of the initial 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR startup, and the nominal design rate and 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) This rule also finalizes, as proposed, operating rate of the extractor or the by changing the ‘‘Yes’’ in column 4 to revisions to several other NESHAP permitted and actual production rates a ‘‘No’’ to remove requirements related requirements. To increase the ease and for the duration of the initial startup to the SSM plan. The final rule includes efficiency of data submittal and data period. The final revisions also require a requirement to record actions to accessibility, we are finalizing a facilities to record information minimize emissions and record requirement that owners and operators including the measured temperature corrective actions in 40 CFR 63.2862(g). of facilities in the Solvent Extraction for and pressure for desolventizing and oil Vegetable Oil Production source distillation units; an indication that the 6. 40 CFR 63.2861 Reporting category submit electronic copies of mineral oil absorption system was To replace the SSM reporting initial notifications, initial startup operating at all times; and (3) an requirements, the EPA is eliminating the reports, annual compliance indication that the solvent condensers periodic SSM reports in 40 CFR certifications, deviation reports, and were operating at all times. 63.2861(c), which were required to be performance test reports through the The EPA is revising the General submitted at the end of each calendar EPA’s CDX using the CEDRI. The initial Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to month of an initial startup period or notifications, initial startup reports, 40 CFR 63.2870) entry for 40 CFR malfunction period. The EPA is also annual compliance certifications, 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ‘‘Yes’’ in removing the requirement in 40 CFR deviation reports, and performance test column 4 to a ‘‘No.’’ The final rule 63.2861(d) to submit an immediate reports are required to be submitted includes recordkeeping requirements for report for SSM when a source failed to according to the deadlines specified in malfunctions in 40 CFR 63.2862(g), meet an applicable standard but did not 40 CFR 63.2861. We also are finalizing, including any ‘‘failure to meet an follow the SSM plan. The EPA is as proposed, provisions that allow

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 15614 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

facility operators the ability to seek Existing affected sources and affected reconstruction after June 27, 2019, will extensions for submitting electronic sources that commenced construction or be March 18, 2020. reports for circumstances beyond the reconstruction on or before June 27, IV. What is the rationale for our final control of the facility, i.e., for a possible 2019, must comply with the decisions and amendments for the outage in the CDX or CEDRI or for a amendments no later than 180 days after Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil force majeure event in the time just March 18, 2020. Affected sources that Production source category? prior to a report’s due date, as well as commence construction or the process to assert such a claim. reconstruction after June 27, 2019 must For each issue, this section provides The EPA is finalizing several minor comply with all requirements of 40 CFR a description of what we proposed and technical editorial changes to the rule. part 63, subpart GGGG, no later than the what we are finalizing for the issue, the The EPA is finalizing several definitions effective date of the final rule or upon EPA’s rationale for the final decisions in 40 CFR 63.2872 to harmonize with startup, whichever is later. The EPA is and amendments, and a summary of key the removal of the SSM requirements finalizing three changes that would comments and responses. For all and to clarify existing provisions. The affect ongoing compliance requirements comments not discussed in this definitions of ‘‘Compliance ratio,’’ for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable preamble, comment summaries, and the ‘‘Nonoperating period,’’ ‘‘Normal Oil Production NESHAP. First, for all EPA’s responses can be found in the operating period,’’ and ‘‘Operating sources, we are finalizing a requirement comment summary and response month’’ are revised in the final rule to that initial notifications, initial startup document, Summary of Public clarify that we have removed reports, annual compliance Comments and Responses for the Risk malfunction periods as a distinct source certifications, deviation reports, and and Technology Review for Solvent operating status during which no limits performance test results be Extraction For Vegetable Oil Production, or work practices applied. The electronically submitted. Next, the EPA which is available in the docket for this definition of ‘‘Normal operating period’’ is finalizing changing the requirements rulemaking. is also revised to clarify that this for SSM by removing the exemption definition also applies to ‘‘normal from the requirements to meet the A. Residual Risk Review for the Solvent operation.’’ standard during SSM periods. For new Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production The EPA is revising the definition of or significantly modified sources, we are Source Category ‘‘Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP)’’ as finalizing an option for facilities to 1. What did we propose pursuant to proposed to remove the reference to the follow new work practice standards for CAA section 112(f) for the Solvent date of April 12, 2001. Finally, the EPA periods of initial startup. From our Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production is adding a definition for ‘‘Nonoperating assessment of the timeframe needed for source category? month’’ as proposed. implementing the entirety of the revised The EPA is finalizing minor revisions requirements, the EPA proposed a Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the to 40 CFR 63.2840(a)(1) and (b)(1), 40 period of 180 days to be the most EPA conducted a residual risk review CFR 63.2853(a)(2), and 40 CFR expeditious compliance period and presented the results of this review, 63.2855(a)(3) to remove text that is practicable for existing affected sources along with our proposed decisions redundant with the definition of or affected sources that commenced regarding risk acceptability and ample ‘‘Operating month’’ in 40 CFR 63.2872. construction or reconstruction on or margin of safety, in the June 27, 2019, Finally, the EPA is revising Table 1 of before June 27, 2019. No comments on proposed rule for 40 CFR part 63, 40 CFR 63.2850 to correct a the compliance period were received subpart GGGG (84 FR 30812). The typographical error in row ‘‘(a)’’ for during the public comment period and results of the risk assessment for the malfunction periods. the 180-day period is being finalized as proposal are presented briefly in Table The legal rationale and detailed proposed. Thus, the compliance date of 2 of this preamble. More detail may be changes for these revisions are set forth the final amendments for all existing found in the residual risk technical in the proposed rule (see 84 FR 30830). sources and new sources that support document, Residual Risk commenced construction or Assessment for the Solvent Extraction E. What are the effective and reconstruction on or before June 27, for Vegetable Oil Production Source compliance dates of the standards? 2019, will be September 15, 2020. The Category in Support of the 2019 Risk The revisions to the MACT standards compliance date of the final and Technology Review Final Rule, being promulgated in this action are amendments for new sources that which is available in the docket for this effective on March 18, 2020. commence construction or rulemaking. TABLE 2—SOLVENT EXTRACTION FOR VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCTION INHALATION PROPOSED RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Maximum Estimated Estimated Number of individual population annual cancer Maximum screening acute at increased incidence Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 3 facilities 1 cancer risk noncancer HQ 2 risk of cancer (cases per (in 1 million) ≥1-in-1 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 nerv- ous system (neurocognitive and neurobehavioral effects).

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 15615

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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 solvent (VOC) loss or by not accounting Response: The EPA disagrees that our needed. These comments and our for the volume fraction of n-hexane in Acute Screening-Level Assessment specific responses can be found below solvent. should not be based on ‘‘reasonable and in the comment summary and Response: As noted at proposal (84 FR worst-case’’ meteorological conditions. response document titled Summary of 30818), the EPA assumed for certain In developing an acute exposure Public Comments and Responses for the facilities that all solvent loss reported as scenario, we estimate 1-hour exposure Risk and Technology Review for Solvent VOC is emitted as n-hexane. We concentrations through air dispersion Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production, adopted this approach where data for modeling during hours of peak which is available in the docket for this facility hexane emissions were emissions. However, hourly emissions action. unavailable or lacking, recognizing that data are not typically available, and the Comment: One commenter stated that this approach would provide the most exact hours of peak emissions are often the acetaldehyde emissions that were conservative estimate of risk. unknown, making it difficult to modeled for the ADM-Clinton facility Additionally, the MACT allowable determine the meteorological conditions were not associated with the vegetable emissions multiplier conservatively to model with the peak emissions. We oil process and should not have been assumed that all loss of n-hexane in the make assumptions about when peak included in the source category solvent extraction process is emitted to hourly emissions occur. In a worst-case modeling file. The commenter stated the atmosphere (84 FR 30819). The scenario, peak hourly emissions would that the EPA should correct the risk proposed approach was adopted taking occur during the 1 hour of the year with assessment by removing acetaldehyde into consideration that the volume the worst-case air dispersion conditions for the ADM-Clinton facility. fraction of n-hexane may vary (i.e., low, continuous wind speeds Response: As noted at proposal, we significantly within a solvent (the blowing in a specific direction). included acetaldehyde emissions in the solvent used in vegetable oil production However, the probability of peak hourly modeling file for the source category facilities is 100-percent VOC and may emissions occurring in the same hour as with the understanding that their range from less than 1 percent to 88- the worst-case air dispersion conditions inclusion in the assessment would percent n-hexane). Where emissions of is extremely low. For example, as result in a conservative estimate of risk. n-hexane or the volume fraction of n- documented in Appendix 5 of the We acknowledge that a reassessment of hexane were not readily available from Residual Risk Assessment for the risk that excludes acetaldehyde permit materials, we conservatively Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil emissions from the facility would result assumed all solvent loss is n-hexane. Production Source Category in Support in lower facility emissions, and Therefore, the risk assessment does of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review potentially lower the source category likely overestimate the actual and Final Rule, available in the docket for risks associated with acetaldehyde. allowable emissions for certain this rulemaking, conservatively the Therefore, because revising the probability of these two events assessment by removing acetaldehyde facilities; as noted at proposal, these occurring simultaneously is about 1-in- emissions from the source category conservative assumptions were adopted 200,000 (or a 0.0005 percent chance). modeling file would not change the to account for the potential ‘‘worst-case’’ Instead, we use ‘‘reasonable worst-case’’ outcome of our risk determination, we risks given that we lacked complete meteorological conditions. This are not undertaking further analysis. We information on the n-hexane emissions approach strikes a balance of being note that the acetaldehyde emissions for specific facilities. Although we health protective without would continue to be considered as part acknowledge that the source category overestimating acute exposures and has of the facility-wide risk assessment (see risks would be lower with the a reasonable probability of occurrence 84 FR 30824) and whole facility risks. adjustments requested by the Comment: One commenter stated that commenters, revision of the actual (conservatively, an 88-in-200,000 the EPA overestimated actual emissions emissions or MACT-allowable chance or 0.044 percent). Using the for nine facilities where the EPA emissions in the modeling file would ‘‘reasonable worst-case’’ meteorological assumed that 100 percent of the not change the EPA’s conclusions conditions, the scenario we modeled is reported VOC emissions were emitted as regarding risk. a rare event (peak emissions would have n-hexane. The commenter stated that Comment: One commenter objected to a 0.044% chance of occuring during the although the EPA did not identify the the EPA’s methodology for the acute same hour as the ‘‘reasonable worst- nine facilities, the commenter’s review risk assessment. The commenter stated case’’ meteorology based on indicated that actual emissions in the that the risk assessment is weakened conservative assumptions, or a 99.956% modeling file for several sources because the EPA used ‘‘reasonable chance of not occuring during that hour) significantly exceeded the actual 2014 worst-case’’ conditions. The commenter rather than a scenario that is extremely emissions of n-hexane. The commenter stated that after recognizing the need to unlikely (peak emissions would have a stated that the EPA should identify the evaluate the worst-case set of 0.0005% chance of occuring during the extent to which the reported HI (0.7) conditions, it is inherently contradictory same hour as the worst-case may be affected by this assumption. The and circular for the EPA to decide to meteorology, or a 99.9995% chance of commenter also stated that the EPA ignore the impacts by deciding that the not occuring during that hour). overestimated the allowable-to-actual worst-case is not actually ‘‘reasonable.’’ After review of all the comments ratio used to estimate allowable Another commenter stated the received, we determined that no emissions for multiple facilities. The assessment of risks for acute exposure is changes to the risk assessment were commenter asserted that although the conservative. It assumes that estimated necessary. The comments and our EPA did not identify the facilities that 1-hour peak emissions occur at the same specific responses can be found in the were used to estimate an allowable-to- time as the ‘‘reasonable worst-case’’ document, Summary of Public actual ratio, they believe, based on a meteorological conditions and that an Comments and Responses for the Risk review of the data, that the EPA individual will be exposed at this time and Technology Review for the Solvent overestimated the allowable-to-actual and under these conditions at the Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production ratio by incorrectly assuming that n- location of the maximum predicted Source Category, available in the docket hexane emissions were equal to total impact. for this action.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 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 15617

4. What is the rationale for our final emission reductions from solvent review, and how we evaluate cost approach and final decisions for the risk extraction for vegetable oil process effectiveness, can be found in the review? vents. We identified for consideration memorandum titled CAA Section As noted in our proposal, the EPA the use of a cryogenic condenser after 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the sets standards under CAA section the main vent as an add-on control Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil 112(f)(2) using ‘‘a two-step standard- option, based on a review of best Production Source Category, which is setting approach, with an analytical first available control technology analyses available in the docket for this action, step to determine an ‘acceptable risk’ where such controls were previously and in the preamble to the proposed that considers all health information, considered. However, based on the costs rule (84 FR 30825). Therefore, pursuant including risk estimation uncertainty, and emission reductions for the to CAA section 112(d)(6), we are and includes a presumptive limit on proposed options, we did not find the finalizing our technology review as MIR of ‘‘approximately 1-in-10 use of a cryogenic condenser as cost proposed. effective for reducing emissions from thousand’’ (see 54 FR 38045, September C. SSM for the Solvent Extraction for 14, 1989). We weigh all health risk these emission sources at solvent extraction for vegetable oil production Vegetable Oil Production Source factors in our risk acceptability Category determination, including the cancer units; and we proposed that it is not MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum necessary to revise the MACT standards 1. What amendments did we propose to cancer TOSHI, the maximum acute for these emission sources pursuant to address emissions during periods of noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer CAA section 112(d)(6). Additional SSM? details of our technology review can be risks, the distribution of cancer and We proposed removing and revising found in the memorandum, CAA noncancer risks in the exposed provisions related to SSM that are not Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for population, and the risk estimation consistent with the requirement that the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil uncertainties. standards apply at all times. We Production Source Category, which is Since proposal, neither the risk proposed that the emission standards available in the docket for this action. assessment nor our determinations for normal operation apply at all times, regarding risk acceptability, ample 2. How did the technology review except for periods of initial startup, for margin of safety, and adverse change for the Solvent Extraction for new or significantly modified sources as environmental effects have changed. For Vegetable Oil Production source described below. We proposed alternate the reasons explained in the proposed category? standards for initial startup periods for rule, we determined that the risks from We have not changed any aspect of new or significantly modified sources. the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Specifically, we proposed that new or Production source category are the technology review since the June 27, 2019, RTR proposal for the Solvent significantly modified facilities acceptable, and the current standards operating in an initial startup period provide an ample margin of safety to Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category. would operate the mineral oil protect public health and prevent an absorption system and solvent adverse environmental effect. Therefore, 3. What key comments did we receive condensers at all times during the initial we are not revising the standards for on the technology review, and what are startup period. We also proposed that this source category pursuant to CAA our responses? facilities establish and follow site- section 112(f)(2) based on the residual We received comments in support of specific operating ranges for risk review, and we are readopting the and opposed to the proposed temperature and vacuum for the existing standards under CAA section determination from the technology desolventizing and oil distillation units 112(f)(2). review that no revisions were warranted associated with solvent recovery. New B. Technology Review for the Solvent under CAA section 112(d)(6). We and significantly modified facilities Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production evaluated the comments and would also continue to have the option Source Category determined that no changes regarding to meet the requirements for normal our determination were needed. These operating periods in Table 1 of 40 CFR 1. What did we propose pursuant to comments and our specific responses 63.2850, in lieu of the work practice CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Solvent can be found in the comment summary standards. We also proposed to revise Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production and response document titled Summary the definition of ‘‘Initial startup period’’ source category? of Public Comments and Responses for to clarify the time at which an initial Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we the Risk and Technology Review for startup period ends and a normal proposed to conclude that no revisions Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil operating period begins. to the current MACT standards for this Production, which is available in the We proposed to remove malfunction source category are necessary for control docket for this action. periods as a distinct source operating of n-hexane emissions from vegetable status, which previously allowed oil production facilities (sections IV.C of 4. What is the rationale for our final sources to exclude data collected during proposal preamble, 84 FR 30825). We approach for the technology review? the ‘‘malfunction period’’ when did not find any developments in We evaluated all of the comments on determining compliance with the practices, processes, and control the EPA’s technology review and emission standards. Under the proposed technologies that could be applied to determined that no changes to the rule, sources that experience an solvent extraction for vegetable oil review are needed. For the reasons unscheduled shutdown as a result of a process vents and that could be used to explained in the proposed rule, we malfunction, continue to operate during reduce emissions from solvent determined that no cost-effective a malfunction (including the period extraction for vegetable oil production developments in practices, processes, or reasonably necessary to correct the facilities. We also did not identify any control technologies were identified in malfunction), or start up after a developments in work practices, our technology review to warrant shutdown resulting from a malfunction pollution prevention techniques, or revisions to the standards. More must instead meet the emission process changes that could achieve information concerning our technology standard requirements for either a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 15618 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

normal operating period or the work practice standards. We have also proposed elimination of relief for SSM practice standards for an initial startup removed the requirement to record and events is not required for the rule to be period (if applicable) in 40 CFR 63.2850 report the time of day the deviation consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA. The and Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. We also occurred, since deviations from the commenter asserted that other court proposed to remove reference to SSM compliance ratio are determined at the opinions have emphasized the need for exemptions from the general duty end of the period. standards to accommodate higher requirements,3 to remove SSM plans, to emission levels that occur at times other 3. What key comments did we receive remove references to SSM exemptions than normal operations. on the SSM revisions and what are our in requirements related to compliance Response: We do not agree that the responses? with the standards and performance MACT emission limits should be testing, and to revise recordkeeping and We received one comment supporting recalculated to include periods of reporting requirements that are not our proposed removal of the exemption startup and shutdown. We disagree with consistent with the requirement that in the regulations for emissions during the commenter’s suggestion that the standards apply at all times. More SSM periods. We received two legal precedent established in case law information concerning our proposal on comments supporting our proposal to (i.e., Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 SSM can be found in the proposed rule establish an option to follow a work (D.C. Cir. 2008)) is not relevant. The (84 FR 30825, June 27, 2019). practice standard during initial startup Sierra Club decision held that emissions periods for new or significantly limitations under CAA section 112 must 2. How did the SSM provisions change modified sources, and did not receive apply continuously and meet minimum since proposal? any comments opposing the proposed stringency requirements, even during We are finalizing the SSM provisions work practice standards during initial periods of SSM. Consistent with Sierra as proposed, except for minor startup periods. We received additional Club v. EPA, for the reasons explained clarifications. We are finalizing the comments requesting that startup or in the proposal preamble at 83 FR proposed alternate work practice shutdown periods be taken into account 30285, we are finalizing our proposal to standards for initial startup periods for when setting the MACT standard. We eliminate the SSM language in 40 CFR new or significantly modified sources, received comments both for and against part 63, subpart GGGG. Subpart GGGG and we are finalizing our proposal to the proposed removal of ‘‘malfunction had both rule-specific SSM language remove malfunction periods as a source periods’’ as a distinct source operating and references to SSM language in the operating status, which previously status. We also received comments part 63 General Provisions in Table 1 of allowed sources to exclude data requesting clarification on the 63.2870, specifically reference to 40 collected during the ‘‘malfunction recordkeeping and reporting CFR 63.6(f)(1). As we explained in the period’’ when calculating their requirements for the date, time, and proposal, our SSM-related rule revisions compliance ratio according to 40 CFR duration of a deviation. We evaluated are in response to the Sierra Club 63.2840. We are finalizing the removal all comments and determined that no Court’s vacatur of the SSM exemption in and revision of SSM requirements changes to the proposed alternate work 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1). related to general duty, SSM plans, practice standards for initial startup When incorporated into CAA section compliance with the standards, and periods for new or significantly 112(d) regulations for specific source performance testing as proposed (84 FR modified sources; no changes to the categories, these two provisions 30825). We are revising the proposed removal of requirements that exempted sources from the requirement recordkeeping requirements at 40 CFR allowed sources to designate the to comply with otherwise applicable 63.2862 and the reporting requirements operating status as a distinct MACT standards during periods of at 40 CFR 63.2861 as proposed, with the ‘‘malfunction periods’’ (facilities must SSM. The Court’s vacatur rendered exception of minor revisions to clarify instead meet the requirements of normal those provisions null and void prior to how to designate the date a deviation operation or initial startup); and no this rulemaking. The mandate occurred and the duration of the changes to the proposed removal or implementing the Court’s decision was deviation. For deviations from the revision of provisions related to SSM issued on October 16, 2009, at which compliance ratio for facilities operating are required, with the exception of time the vacated SSM provision 40 CFR under a normal operating period, the minor clarifications as discussed in this 63.6(f)(1) referenced by subpart GGGG date of the deviation is the date the section. was no longer in effect. Eliminating compliance ratio determination is made, Comment: Two commenters stated reference to this provision, and other and the duration of the deviation is the that the EPA should take periods of related General Provisions referenced in length of time taken to address the cause startup and shutdown into account subpart GGGG, is a ministerial action by of the deviation (including the duration when setting the MACT emissions the EPA to reflect the vacatur by the of any malfunction) and to return the standards. The commenters stated that if Court. We also eliminated the rule- affected unit(s) to its normal or usual the EPA is removing the exemption of specific SSM provisions in subpart manner of operation. For deviations startup and shutdown emissions from GGGG. The final standards will apply at from the work practice standard for the calculation of the compliance ratio, all times, consistent with the Sierra facilities operating under an initial the EPA should recalculate the MACT Club decision. startup period, the date of the deviation emission limits based on normal As an alternative approach consistent is the date when the facility fails to operation plus periods of startup and with Sierra Club, the EPA may designate comply with any of the work practice shutdown. The commenters stated that different standards to apply during standards in 40 CFR 63.2840(h), and the the EPA has indicated the current startup and shutdown (as noted in the duration of the deviation is the length NESHAP provides an ample margin of proposal, the EPA is not obligated to set of time taken to return to the work safety to protect public health, and that standards for periods of malfunction). this indicates there is ample room to For this category, the compliance 3 We proposed to add general duty regulatory text increase the MACT limits to more approaches required by state regulatory at 40 CFR 63.2840(g) to reflect the general duty to appropriate levels that include the authorities led us to decide special minimize emissions, while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption startup and shutdown operations. startup/shutdown standards were (see 84 FR 30828). Another commenter stated that the unnecessary for existing sources. Based

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 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 15619

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s expeditiously in order to maintain any types of malfunctions that can occur approach to malfunctions is consistent affected source, including associated air across all sources in the category and with CAA section 112 and is a pollution control equipment and given the difficulties associated with reasonable interpretation of the statute. monitoring equipment, and minimize predicting or accounting for the As noted at proposal, the EPA emissions. frequency, degree, and duration of considers whether circumstances Nevertheless, the EPA acknowledges various malfunctions that might occur. warrant setting standards for a that including solvent loss from a one- Id. at 608 (‘‘the EPA would have to particular type of malfunction and, if so, time event (like a malfunction) in the conceive of a standard that could apply whether the EPA has sufficient 12-month compliance ratio could cause equally to the wide range of possible information to identify the relevant best a deviation for one or more monthly [ ] malfunctions, ranging from an performing sources and establish a compliance ratio determinations, and explosion to minor mechanical defects. standard for such malfunctions. The would remain in the rolling compliance Any possible standard is likely to be EPA has also considered the need for a determination for up to 1 year (12 hopelessly generic to govern such a work practice for periods of malfunction months). We also recognize that it is wide array of circumstances.’’). As such, for vegetable oil production facilities. possible that a malfunction that causes the performance of units that are Although we requested information on a 12-month compliance ratio to be malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ emissions and the operation of exceeded might have been corrected foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. processes during malfunction periods in well before the first full 12-months have passed. Although a facility would need EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) our consultations with state agencies to retain records of any deviation and (‘‘The EPA typically has wide latitude and industry, we did not receive the corrective action(s) performed, no in determining the extent of data- sufficient information for development additional corrective action would be gathering necessary to solve a problem. of proposed standards. Therefore, as required at the time the 12-month We generally defer to an agency’s part of the proposal, the EPA solicited compliance ratio is officially exceeded decision to proceed on the basis of information on the type of events that in subsequent months if the facility imperfect scientific information, rather constitute a malfunction event, industry demonstrates the exceedance is from a than to ‘invest the resources to conduct best practices, and the best level of prior malfunction that has been emission control during malfunction the perfect study.’’’). See also, corrected. Facilities would be able to Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, events. The EPA also requested provide such an explanation in their 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of commenters provide information on the deviation reports; specifically, we have things, no general limit, individual costs associated with any recommended revised the deviation reporting permit, or even any upset provision can work practices. In addition, the EPA requirements in the final rule to include anticipate all upset situations. After a solicited specific supporting data on a requirement that facilities flag and certain point, the transgression of HAP emissions during malfunction provide an explanation for any regulatory limits caused by events, including the cause of deviation from the compliance ratio for ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ malfunction, the frequency of which a deviation report is being such as strikes, sabotage, operator malfunction, duration of malfunction, submitted for more than 1 consecutive intoxication or insanity, and a variety of and the estimate of HAP emitted during month (i.e., include a reference to the other eventualities, must be a matter for each malfunction. In this case, although original date and reporting of the the administrative exercise of case-by- we requested comment and information deviation) (see 40 CFR 63.2861(b)). case enforcement discretion, not for to support the development of a Further, as discussed below in this specification in advance by standard during periods of malfunction, section, we have clarified that the regulation.’’). In addition, emissions we did not receive sufficient duration of the deviation from the during a malfunction event can be information, including additional compliance ratio is the length of time significantly higher than emissions at quantitative emissions data, on which to taken to address the cause of the any other time of source operation. For base a standard. Absent sufficient deviation (including the duration of any example, if an air pollution control information, it is not reasonable at this malfunction) and to return the affected device with 99-percent removal goes off- time to establish a work practice unit(s) to its normal or usual manner of line as a result of a malfunction (as standard for periods of malfunction for operation. Therefore, facilities must might happen if, for example, the bags this source category. For these reasons, retain records of the date and duration in a baghouse catch fire) and the we are not setting separate standards for of the malfunction, as well as the emission unit is a steady state type unit periods of malfunction. Under the final corrective action(s) performed, to that would take days to shut down, the rule, sources that experience an demonstrate the basis for the deviation source would go from 99-percent unscheduled shutdown as a result of a in subsequent periods. control to zero control until the control malfunction, continue to operate during As further explained at proposal, ‘‘[i]n device was repaired. The source’s a malfunction (including the period the event that a source fails to comply emissions during the malfunction reasonably necessary to correct the with the applicable CAA section 112(d) would be 100 times higher than during malfunction), or start up after a standards as a result of a malfunction normal operations. As such, the shutdown resulting from a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an emissions over a 4-day malfunction must instead meet the emission appropriate response based on, among period would exceed the annual standard requirements for either a other things, the good faith efforts of the emissions of the source during normal normal operating period or the work source to minimize emissions during operations. As this example illustrates, practice standards for an initial startup malfunction periods, including accounting for malfunctions could lead period (if a new or significantly preventive and corrective actions, as to standards that are not reflective of modified source) in 40 CFR 63.2850 and well as root cause analyses to ascertain (and significantly less stringent than) Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. We note that and rectify excess emissions. The EPA levels that are achieved by a well- sources must still meet the general duty would also consider whether the performing non-malfunctioning source. requirements in 40 CFR 63.2840(g) and source’s failure to comply with the CAA It is reasonable to interpret CAA section should address malfunctions section 112(d) standard was, in fact,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 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 15621

sudden, infrequent, not reasonably condenser at all times during the initial D. Technical Amendments to the MACT preventable and was not instead caused startup period, or fails to meet the site- Standards for the Solvent Extraction for in part by poor maintenance or careless specific operating limits established by Vegetable Oil Production Source operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of the facility). These dates must be Category malfunction). If the EPA determines in reported in the deviation notification 1. What other amendments did we a particular case that an enforcement report according to the final rule propose for the Solvent Extraction for action against a source for violation of requirements at 40 CFR 63.2861(b)(5). Vegetable Oil Production source an emission standard is warranted, the We have revised 40 CFR 63.2862(g)(1) to category? source can raise any and all defenses in clarify that for deviations from the that enforcement action and the federal compliance ratio, the duration of the district court will determine what, if We proposed that owners and deviation is the length of time taken to any, relief is appropriate. The same is operators submit electronic copies of true for citizen enforcement actions. address the cause of the deviation initial notifications, initial startup Similarly, the presiding officer in an (including the duration of any reports, annual compliance administrative proceeding can consider malfunction) and to return the affected certifications, deviation reports, and any defense raised and determine unit(s) to its normal or usual manner of performance test reports through the whether administrative penalties are operation. For deviations from the work EPA’s CDX using the CEDRI. For initial appropriate’’ (84 FR 30828). practice standard during the initial notifications, initial startup reports, Comment: We received one comment startup period, the duration of the annual compliance certifications, and requesting clarification on the revised deviation is the length of time taken to deviation reports, the proposed rule reporting and recordkeeping return to the work practice standards. requires that owners and operators use requirements for deviations. The The final rule requirements are the appropriate spreadsheet template to commenter requested that the EPA consistent with the prior requirements submit information to CEDRI. We also clarify how a facility should designate of 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) to retain a proposed two broad circumstances in the date a deviation occurred. The record of the ‘‘occurrence and duration which we may provide extension to commenter recommended that because of each malfunction’’ and are necessary these requirements. We proposed at 40 there is a single compliance ratio to allow the EPA to determine the CFR 63.2862(f) that an extension may be determination for an operating month, severity of any failure to meet a warranted due to outages of the EPA’s the rule should specify that a deviation standard. Finally, we have revised the be reported as occurring on the date the CDX or CEDRI that precludes an owner final rule requirements to remove the compliance ratio determination is made. or operator from accessing the system The commenter also requested requirement to record or report the time and submitting required reports. We clarification on the duration of a of a deviation, as this information is not also proposed at 40 CFR 63.2862(g) that deviation, noting that solvent loss from necessary to determine compliance with an extension may be warranted due to a one-time event (like a malfunction) the standard. a force majeure event, such as an act of could cause a deviation for one or more Additional comments on the SSM nature, act of war or terrorism, or monthly compliance ratio provisions and our specific responses to equipment failure or safety hazards determinations. The commenter stated it those comments can be found in the beyond the control of the facility. is unreasonable to require facilities to document titled Summary of Public We proposed revisions to several report events that may last only 1 day Comments and Responses for the Risk definitions in 40 CFR 63.2872 to as having a duration of 30 days or even and Technology Review for Solvent harmonize with the proposed removal longer, and asked the EPA to clarify if Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production, of the SSM requirements and to clarify the deviation reporting requirements which is available in the docket for this existing provisions, include revisions to only apply to work practice standards. action. Finally, the commenter stated the definitions of ‘‘Compliance ratio,’’ reporting template should not require 4. What is the rationale for our final ‘‘Nonoperating period,’’ ‘‘Normal facilities to report the time of a approach and final decisions to address operating period,’’ and ‘‘Operating deviation; the commenter urged that the emissions during periods of SSM? month’’ to clarify where the malfunction time of day a deviation occurs is not period is excluded, and to the definition needed to determine compliance with We evaluated all the comments on the of ‘‘Normal operating period’’ to clarify the standards. EPA’s proposed amendments to the that this definition also applies to Response: We agree with the SSM provisions. For the reasons ‘‘normal operation.’’ We also proposed commenter and have revised the explained in the proposed rule (84 FR to add a definition for ‘‘Nonoperating reporting and recordkeeping 30812), we determined that these month.’’ We proposed to revise the requirements for deviations for amendments appropriately remove and definition of ‘‘Hazardous air pollutant clarification. Specifically, we have revise provisions related to SSM that are (HAP)’’ to remove the reference to the revised the recordkeeping requirements not consistent with the requirement that date of April 12, 2001. of 40 CFR 63.2862(g)(1) to clarify that the standards apply at all times. We proposed minor revisions to 40 for deviations from the compliance Therefore, we are finalizing the ratio, the date of the deviation is the CFR 63.2840(a)(1) and (b)(1), 40 CFR amendments to remove and revise date the compliance ratio determination 63.2853(a)(2), and 40 CFR 63.2855(a)(3) provisions related to SSM, as proposed, is made. For deviations from the work to remove text that is redundant with practice standard during the initial with the exception of the clarifications the definition of ‘‘Operating month’’ in startup period, the date of the deviation discussed in this section. 40 CFR 63.2872. We also proposed a is the date when the facility fails to minor correction to Table 1 of 63.2850 comply with any of the work practice to correct a typographical error in row standard in 40 CFR 63.2840(h) (e.g., if ‘‘(a)’’ for malfunction periods. the facility fails to operate the mineral oil absorption system or the solvent

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 15622 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 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 15623

Administrator agrees that something Recordkeeping Requirements for the source per year. The EPA received outside the control of the owner or New Source Performance Standards (80 comment on the proposed rule that operator prevented the owner or FR 15100). As such, we have some larger facilities may have operator from meeting its reporting determined that no changes to the significant modifications about once a obligation. In no circumstance does this electronic reporting requirements are year, therefore, we assume that eight electronic reporting extension allow for necessary in the final rule. existing vegetable oil production the owner or operator to be out of Additional comments on the facilities may have a significant compliance with the underlying proposed electronic reporting modification that could meet the revised emissions standards. If the requirements and other amendments requirements for initial startup periods. Administrator determines that a facility and our specific responses to those B. What are the air quality impacts? has not acted in good faith to reasonably comments can be found in the report in a timely manner, the memorandum titled Summary of Public The EPA estimates that annual HAP Administrator can reject the claim and Comments and Responses for the Risk emissions from the vegetable oil find that the failure to report timely is and Technology Review for Solvent production facilities that are subject to a deviation from the regulation. CEDRI Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production, the NESHAP are approximately 13,500 system outages are infrequent, but the available in the docket for this action. tpy.4 Because the EPA is not revising the EPA knows when they occur and emission limits, we do not anticipate 4. What is the rationale for our final whether a facility’s claim is legitimate. any quantifiable air quality impacts as a approach and final decisions for the Force majeure events (e.g., natural result of these amendments. However, other amendments for the Solvent disasters impacting a facility) are also we anticipate that the final Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production usually well-known events. requirements, including the work source category? Finally, EPA disagrees that the practice standards for the optional existing statistics on the use of CEDRI We evaluated the comment on the initial startup period, are at least as and e-reporting precludes the need for EPA’s proposed amendments to require stringent as the current rule a provision to account for an outage of electronic reporting initial notifications, requirements. The work practice the CEDRI system. Prudent management initial startup reports, annual standards include requirements for of electronic data systems builds in compliance certifications, deviation facilities to operate controls, including allowances for unexpected, non-routine reports, and performance test reports. the mineral oil absorption system and delays, such as occurred on July 1, 2016 For the reasons explained in the solvent condensers, at all times during and October 20–23, 2017, and is proposed rule, we determined that these the initial startup period. Facilities must consistent with the already-existing amendments increase the ease and also establish and follow site-specific provisions afforded for unexpected, efficiency of data submittal and improve operating ranges for temperature and non-routine delays in performance data accessibility. More information vacuum for the desolventizing and oil testing [see 40 CFR 60.8(a)(1) and (2) concerning the proposed requirement distillation units associated with solvent and 40 CFR 63.7(a)(4)]. For both for owners and operators of vegetable oil recovery. We anticipate these electronic reporting and performance production facilities to submit requirements will minimize emissions testing, owners or operators are to electronic copies of certain notifications during these periods. and reports is in the preamble to the conduct and complete their activities C. What are the cost impacts? within a short window of time; the EPA proposed rule (84 FR 30830, June 27, The 89 vegetable oil production believes it is prudent to allow owners or 2019) and the document, Summary of facilities that would be subject to the operators to make force majeure claims Public Comments and Responses for the final amendments, and one additional for situations beyond their reasonable Risk and Technology Review for the new source per year, would incur control. The EPA also disagrees that Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil minimal net costs to meet revised incidental issues with questions on Production, available in the docket for recordkeeping and reporting completing the form or the procedures this action. Therefore, we are finalizing requirements, some estimated to have for accessing CEDRI for which the our approach for submission of initial costs and some estimated to have cost CEDRI Helpdesk is available, are notifications, initial startup reports, savings. Nationwide costs associated conditions that would be considered annual compliance certifications, with the final requirements are either force majeure or a CEDRI system deviation reports, and performance test estimated to total $93,100 over the 3 outage. The existence of the Helpdesk reports as proposed. years following promulgation of for answering questions on procedures V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, amendments (or $31,033 per year). The in submitting reports to CEDRI have no and Economic Impacts and Additional EPA believes that the vegetable oil impact on the availability of CEDRI in Analyses Conducted production facilities that are known to such a circumstance. The purpose of be subject to the NESHAP can meet the these requests for extensions are to A. What are the affected facilities? final requirements without incurring accommodate owners and operators in The EPA estimates that there are 89 additional capital or operational costs. cases where they cannot successfully vegetable oil production facilities that Therefore, the only costs associated submit a report electronically for are currently subject to the Solvent with the final amendments include a reasons that are beyond their control Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production one-time burden for reviewing and occur during a short window of NESHAP and would be affected by the requirements of the amended rule, and time prior to the reporting deadline. The final amendments. The basis of our a one-time burden associated with extension is not automatic, and the estimate of affected facilities is provided recordkeeping and reporting labor costs Administrator retains the right to accept in the memorandum, Residual Risk for initial startup periods for new, or reject the request. The language was Modeling File Documentation for the reconstructed, or significantly modified added as part of the standard electronic Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category, which is reporting language based on numerous 4 The annual HAP emission estimates include comments received on the proposal for available in the docket for this action. emissions from 88 facilities. Annual emissions are the Electronic Reporting and We additionally anticipate one new not yet available for one newly constructed facility.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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 E. What are the benefits? Vegetable Oil Production, which is proposed rule that one potential new or available in the docket for this action. Although the EPA does not anticipate reconstructed vegetable oil production G. What analysis of children’s facility would be subject to the revised quantifiable reductions in HAP emissions as a result of the final environmental health did we conduct? requirements for initial startup periods amendments, we believe that the action each year. However, we received This action is not subject to Executive will result in improvements to the rule. comment on the proposed rule that Order 13045 because it is not Specifically, the final amendments some larger facilities may have economically significant as defined in revise the standards such that they Executive Order 12866, and because the significant modifications about once a apply at all times. For facilities that year. Therefore, we have revised the EPA does not believe the environmental choose to operate under an initial health or safety risks addressed by this costs associated with the final rule to startup period, the EPA is finalizing an assume that approximately eight action present a disproportionate risk to alternative work practice standard that children. This action’s health and risk existing vegetable oil production will ensure that facilities are operating facilities (or approximately 10 percent assessments are summarized in section controls and minimizing emissions IV.A of this preamble and are further of existing facilities) may have a while the source operates under non- documented in the risk report, Residual significant modification that could steady state production, which we Risk Assessment for the Solvent require that they meet the revised expect will protect public health and Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production requirements for initial startup periods. the environment through better Source Category in Support of the 2019 The revised assumption results in an compliance during these periods. Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, increase in the total nationwide annual Additionally, the final amendments available in the docket for this action. costs associated with the final requiring electronic submittal of initial requirements to account for the notifications, initial startup reports, VI. Statutory and Executive Order additional facilities anticipated to have annual compliance certifications, Reviews a significant modification (actual costs deviation reports, and performance test Additional information about these per facility have not changed). For results will streamline reporting for statutes and Executive Orders can be further information on the costs and affected sources, increase the usefulness found at https://www.epa.gov/laws- cost savings associated with the final of the data and improve data regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. requirements, see the memorandum, accessibility for the public, will further Cost for the Solvent Extraction for assist in the protection of public health A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Vegetable Oil Production Source and the environment, and will Planning and Review and Executive Category Risk and Technology Review— ultimately result in less burden on the Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review Final Amendments, and the document, regulated community. See section Supporting Statement for NESHAP for IV.D.2 of the preamble to the proposed This action is not a significant Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil rule for more information. regulatory action and was, therefore, not Production, which are both available in F. What analysis of environmental submitted to the Office of Management the docket for this action. justice did we conduct? and Budget (OMB) for review. D. What are the economic impacts? As discussed in the preamble to the B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing proposed rule, to examine the potential Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Economic impact analyses focus on for any environmental justice issues that Costs changes in market prices and output might be associated with the source levels. If changes in market prices and This action is not an Executive Order category, we performed a demographic 13771 regulatory action because this output levels in the primary markets are analysis, which is an assessment of risks significant enough, impacts on other action is not significant under Executive to individual demographic groups of the Order 12866. markets may also be examined. Both the populations living within 5 kilometers magnitude of costs needed to comply (km) and within 50 km of the facilities. C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) with a final rule and the distribution of In the analysis, we evaluated the The information collection activities these costs among affected facilities can distribution of HAP-related cancer and in this rule have been submitted for have a role in determining how the noncancer risks from the Solvent approval to the OMB under the PRA. market will change in response to a final Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production The Information Collection Request rule. The total costs associated with the source category across different (ICR) document that the EPA prepared final rule are estimated to be $93,100 (or demographic groups within the has been assigned EPA ICR number $31,033 per year) for the 3 years populations living near facilities. When 1947.09. You can find a copy of the ICR following the final rule. This includes a examining the risk levels of those in the docket for this rule, and it is one-time burden for reviewing exposed to emissions from solvent briefly summarized here. The requirements of the amended rule, and extraction for vegetable oil production information collection requirements are a one-time burden associated with the facilities, we found that no one is not enforceable until OMB approves recordkeeping and reporting for initial exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1- them. startup periods for new, reconstructed, in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer The EPA is finalizing amendments or significantly modified facilities. This TOSHI greater than 1. that revise provisions pertaining to is an estimated average cost of The documentation for this decision emissions during periods of SSM; add approximately $345 per year per is contained in section IV.A of the requirements for electronic reporting of facility. These costs are not expected to preamble to the proposed rule and the certain notifications and reports and result in a significant market impact, technical report titled Risk and performance test results; and make other regardless of whether they are passed on Technology Review—Analysis of minor clarifications and corrections. to the purchaser or absorbed by the Demographic Factors for Populations This information will be collected to firms. Living Near Solvent Extraction for assure compliance with the Solvent

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 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 15625

Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and Technology Review through the NESHAP. (UMRA) Enhanced National Standards Systems Respondents/affected entities: This action does not contain an Network Database managed by the Owners or operators of vegetable oil unfunded mandate of $100 million or American National Standards Institute production processes. more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. (ANSI). We also contacted voluntary consensus standards (VCS) Respondent’s obligation to respond: 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The organizations and accessed and Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart searched their databases. We conducted GGGG). action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or searches for EPA Method 311 of 40 CFR Estimated number of respondents: 90 the private sector. part 63, appendix A. No applicable VCS (assumes one new respondent over the were identified for EPA Method 311. next 3 years). F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism The search identified two VCS that were Frequency of response: Initially, This action does not have federalism potentially applicable for this rule in occasionally, and annually. implications. It will not have substantial lieu of EPA reference methods. After reviewing the available standards, the Total estimated burden: The annual direct effects on the states, on the EPA determined that the two candidate recordkeeping and reporting burden for relationship between the national government and the states, or on the VCS (ASTM D6438 (1999), CARB responding facilities to comply with all distribution of power and Method 310)) identified for measuring of the requirements in the NESHAP, responsibilities among the various emissions of pollutants or their averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is levels of government. surrogates subject to emissions estimated to be 34,100 hours. Of these, standards in the rule would not be 448 hours (per year) is the incremental G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation practical due to lack of equivalency, burden to comply with the final rule and Coordination With Indian Tribal documentation, validation data, and amendments. Burden is defined at 5 Governments other important technical and policy CFR 1320.3(b). This action does not have tribal considerations. Total estimated cost: The annual implications as specified in Executive A thorough summary of the search recordkeeping and reporting cost for Order 13175. None of the solvent conducted, and results are included in responding facilities to comply with all extraction for vegetable oil production the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus of the requirements in the NESHAP, facilities that have been identified as Standard Results for National Emission averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is being affected by this final action are Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants estimated to be $3,490,000 (per year), owned or operated by tribal for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil including $0 annualized capital or governments or located within tribal Production, which is available in the operation and maintenance costs. Of the lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175 docket for this action. total, $31,033 (per year) is the does not apply to this action. incremental cost to comply with the K. Executive Order 12898: Federal H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of final amendments to the rule, or Actions To Address Environmental Children From Environmental Health approximately $345 per facility. Justice in Minority Populations and Risks and Safety Risks An agency may not conduct or Low-Income Populations sponsor, and a person is not required to This action is not subject to Executive The EPA believes that this action does respond to, a collection of information Order 13045 because the EPA does not not have disproportionately high and unless it displays a currently valid OMB believe the environmental health risks adverse human health or environmental control number. The OMB control or safety risks addressed by this action effects on minority populations, low- numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 present a disproportionate risk to income populations, and/or indigenous CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When children. This action’s health and risk peoples, as specified in Executive Order OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will assessments are contained in sections 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). announce that approval in the Federal IV.A of this preamble and the Register and publish a technical document, Residual Risk Assessment for The documentation for this decision amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil is contained in section IV.A of this the OMB control number for the Production Source Category in Support preamble and in the technical report, approved information collection of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Risk and Technology Review—Analysis activities contained in this final rule. Final Rule, which is available in the of Demographic Factors for Populations docket for this rulemaking. Living Near Vegetable Oil Production D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Facilities, available in the docket for this I certify that this action will not have Concerning Regulations That action. a significant economic impact on a Significantly Affect Energy Supply, L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) substantial number of small entities Distribution, or Use under the RFA. The small entities This action is not subject to Executive This action is subject to the CRA, and subject to the requirements of this Order 13211, because it is not a the EPA will submit a rule report to action are small vegetable oil significant regulatory action under each House of the Congress and to the production facilities. The Agency has Executive Order 12866. Comptroller General of the United determined that up to 12 small entities, States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ representing approximately 13 percent J. National Technology Transfer and as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Advancement Act (NTTAA) of the total number of entities subject to List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 the final rule, may experience an impact This rulemaking involves technical of less than 1 percent of revenues. See standards. As discussed in the preamble Environmental protection, Air section V.D of this preamble for of the proposal, the EPA conducted pollution control, Hazardous additional information on the economic searches for the Solvent Extraction for substances, Reporting and impacts of this action. Vegetable Oil Production Sector Risk recordkeeping requirements.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 15626 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: February 25, 2020. PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION Subpart GGGG—National Emission Andrew R. Wheeler, STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR Standards for Hazardous Air Administrator. POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE Pollutants: Solvent Extraction for CATEGORIES Vegetable Oil Production For the reasons set forth in the ■ preamble, the EPA is amending 40 CFR ■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 2. Section 63.2834 is amended by revising Table 1 of § 63.2834 to read as part 63 as follows: continues to read as follows: follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. § 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

Except for certain requirements, as specified in If your affected source is Then your compliance §§ 63.2840, 63.2850, 63.2851, categorized as . . . And if . . . date is . . . 63.2852, 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 affected source before April 12, April 12, 2004 ...... September 15, 2020. 2001. (c) a new source ...... you startup your affected source on or after April 12, your startup date ...... September 15, 2020. 2001, but before March 18, 2020. (d) a new source ...... you startup your affected source on or after March your startup date ...... your startup date. 18, 2020.

■ 3. Section 63.2840 is amended by: (b) When your source has processed affected source, including associated air ■ a. Revising the introductory text and listed oilseed for 12 operating months, pollution control equipment and paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text and calculate the compliance ratio by the monitoring equipment, at all times in a (b) introductory text; end of each calendar month following manner consistent with safety and good ■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph an operating month, as defined in air pollution control practices for (b)(1); § 63.2872, using Equation 2 of this minimizing emissions. The general duty ■ c Revising paragraphs (b)(3) through section. When calculating your to minimize emissions does not require (5); and compliance ratio, consider the you to make any further efforts to ■ d. Adding paragraphs (g) and (h). conditions and exclusions in paragraphs reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been The revisions and additions read as (b)(1) through (6) of this section: achieved. Determination of whether a follows: * * * * * (3) If your source shuts down and source is operating in compliance with § 63.2840 What emission requirements processes no listed oilseed for an entire operation and maintenance must I meet? calendar or accounting month, then you requirements will be based on For each facility meeting the must categorize the month as a information available to the applicability criteria in § 63.2832, you nonoperating month, as defined in Administrator which may include, but must comply with either the § 63.2872. Exclude any nonoperating is not limited to, monitoring results, requirements specified in paragraphs (a) months from the compliance ratio review of operation and maintenance through (d), or the requirements in determination. procedures, review of operation and paragraph (e) of this section. You must (4) If your source is subject to an maintenance records, and inspection of also comply with the requirements in initial startup period as defined in the source. (h) On and after September 15, 2020, paragraph (g) of this section. You must § 63.2872, you may exclude from the you must meet the requirements in comply with the work practice standard compliance ratio determination any paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this provided in paragraph (h) of this solvent and oilseed information section if you choose to operate your section, if you choose to operate your recorded for the initial startup period, source under an initial startup period source under an initial startup period provided you meet the work practice subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2). subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2). standard in § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2). (1) You must operate the mineral oil (a)(1) The emission requirements limit (5) Before September 15, 2020, if your absorption system at all times during the number of gallons of HAP lost per source is subject to a malfunction period the initial startup period unless doing so ton of listed oilseeds processed. For as defined in § 63.2872, exclude from is not possible due to safety each operating month, as defined in the compliance ratio determination any considerations; § 63.2872, you must calculate a solvent and oilseed information (2) You must operate the solvent compliance ratio which compares your recorded for the malfunction period. condensers at all times during the initial actual HAP loss to your allowable HAP The provisions of this paragraph (e) do startup period unless doing so is not loss for the previous 12 operating not apply on and after September 15, possible due to safety considerations; months as shown in Equation 1 of this 2020. and section. Equation 1 of this section * * * * * (3) You must follow site-specific follows: (g) On or after September 15, 2020, operating limits, established according * * * * * you must operate and maintain any to the requirements in paragraphs

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 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 15627

(h)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section, for (1) Normal operation. Upon initial in § 63.2840(h) for the duration of the temperature and pressure for the startup of your new source, you must initial startup period. At the end of the desolventizing and oil distillation units meet all of the requirements listed in initial startup period (as defined in associated with solvent recovery at all § 63.2850(a) and Table 1 of this section § 63.2872), your new or existing source times, unless doing so is not possible for sources under normal operation, and must meet all of the requirements listed due to safety considerations. the schedules for demonstrating in Table 1 of this section for sources (i) Your site-specific operating limits compliance for new sources under under normal operation. may be based on equipment design, normal operation in Table 2 of this (e) Existing or new sources section. manufacturer’s recommendations, or experiencing a malfunction. A (2) Initial startup period. For up to 6 other site-specific operating values malfunction is defined in § 63.2. In established for normal operating calendar months after the startup date of your new source, you must meet all of general, it means any sudden, periods. infrequent, and not reasonably (ii) The operating limits may be in the the requirements listed in paragraph (a) preventable failure of air pollution form of a minimum, maximum, or of this section and Table 1 of this control equipment, process equipment, operating range. section for sources operating under an initial startup period, and the schedules or a process to function in a normal or ■ 4. Section 63.2850 is amended by: usual manner. If your existing or new ■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(3) and for demonstrating compliance for new sources operating under an initial source experiences an unscheduled paragraph (a)(5) introductory text; shutdown as a result of a malfunction, ■ startup period in Table 2 of this section. b. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(iv); continues to operate during a ■ On and after September 15, 2020, you c. Revising paragraphs (b), (c)(1) and malfunction (including the period (2), (d)(1) and (2), (e) introductory text, must also comply with the work practice standard in § 63.2840(h) for the reasonably necessary to correct the and (e)(2); and malfunction), or starts up after a ■ d. Revising Table 1 of § 63.2850. duration of the initial startup period. At shutdown resulting from a malfunction, The revisions and addition read as the end of the initial startup period (as then you must meet the requirements follows: defined in § 63.2872), your new source must then meet all of the requirements associated with one of two compliance § 63.2850 How do I comply with the listed in Table 1 of this section for options. Routine or scheduled process hazardous air pollutant emission sources under normal operation. startups and shutdowns resulting from, standards? (d) * * * but not limited to, market demands, (a) * * * (1) Normal operation. Upon initial maintenance activities, and switching (3) Develop a written startup, startup of your significantly modified types of oilseed processed, are not shutdown and malfunction (SSM) plan existing or new source, you must meet startups or shutdowns resulting from a in accordance with the provisions in all of the requirements listed in malfunction and, therefore, do not § 63.2852. On and after September 15, paragraph (a) of this section and Table qualify for this provision. Within 15 2020, an SSM plan is not required. 1 of this section for sources under days of the beginning date of the * * * * * normal operation, and the schedules for malfunction, you must choose to (5) Submit the reports in paragraphs demonstrating compliance for an comply with one of the options listed in (a)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section, as existing or new source that has been paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section. applicable: significantly modified in Table 2 of this The provisions of this paragraph (e) do section. * * * * * not apply on and after September 15, (2) Initial startup period. For up to 3 2020. (iv) Initial startup period reports in calendar months after the startup date of accordance with § 63.2861(e). your significantly modified existing or * * * * * * * * * * new source, you must meet all of the (2) Malfunction period. Throughout (b) Existing sources under normal requirements listed in paragraph (a) of the malfunction period, you must meet operation. You must meet all of the this section and Table 1 of this section all of the requirements listed in requirements listed in paragraph (a) of for sources operating under an initial paragraph (a) of this section and Table this section and Table 1 of this section startup period, and the schedules for 1 of this section for sources operating for sources under normal operation, and demonstrating compliance for a during a malfunction period. At the end the schedules for demonstrating significantly modified existing or new of the malfunction period, your source compliance for existing sources under source operating under an initial startup must then meet all of the requirements normal operation in Table 2 of this period in Table 2 of this section. On and listed in Table 1 of this section for section. after September 15, 2020, you must also sources under normal operation. Table 1 (c) * * * comply with the work practice standard of this section follows:

TABLE 1 OF § 63.2850—REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH HAP EMISSION STANDARDS

Before September 15, 2020, for Are you required to . . . For periods of normal For initial startup periods subject malfunction periods subject to operation? a to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2)? § 63.2850(e)(2)? a

(a)(1) Operate and maintain your Yes. Additionally, the HAP emis- Yes, you are required to minimize Yes, you are required to minimize source in accordance with gen- sion limits will apply. emissions to the extent prac- emissions to the extent practicable eral duty provisions of § 63.6(e) ticable throughout the initial throughout the initial startup pe- before September 15, 2020? startup period. Such measures riod. Such measures should be should be described in the SSM described in the SSM plan. 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 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 15628 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1 OF § 63.2850—REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH HAP EMISSION STANDARDS—Continued

For initial startup periods subject Before September 15, 2020, for Are you required to . . . For periods of normal malfunction periods subject to operation? a to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2)? § 63.2850(e)(2)? a

(a)(2) Operate and maintain your No, you must meet the require- No, you must meet the require- source in accordance with gen- ments of § 63.2840(g). Addi- ments of § 63.2840(g). eral duty provisions of § 63.6(e) tionally, the HAP emission lim- on and after September 15, its will apply. 2020? (b) Determine and record the ex- Yes, as described in § 63.2853 .. Yes, as described in § 63.2862(e) Yes, as described in § 63.2862(e). traction solvent loss in gallons (before September 15, 2020) from your source? and § 63.2862(f) (on and after September 15, 2020). (c) Record the volume fraction of Yes ...... Yes ...... Yes. HAP present at greater than 1 percent by volume and gallons of extraction solvent in ship- ment received? (d) Determine and record the Yes, as described in § 63.2855 .. No ...... No. tons of each oilseed type proc- essed by your source? (e) Determine the weighted aver- Yes ...... No. Except for solvent received No, the HAP volume fraction in any age volume fraction of HAP in by a new or reconstructed solvent received during a malfunc- extraction solvent received as source commencing operation tion period is included in the described in § 63.2854 by the under an initial startup period, weighted average HAP determina- end of the following calendar the HAP volume fraction in any tion for the next operating month. month? solvent received during an ini- tial startup period is included in the weighted average HAP de- termination for the next oper- ating month. (f) Determine and record the ac- Yes ...... No, these requirements are not No, these requirements are not ap- tual solvent loss, weighted av- applicable because your source plicable because your source is erage volume fraction HAP, oil- is not required to determine the not required to determine the com- seed processed and compli- compliance ratio with data re- pliance ratio with data recorded for ance ratio for each 12 oper- corded for an initial startup pe- a malfunction period. ating month period as de- riod. scribed in § 63.2840 by the end of the following calendar month? (g) Submit a Notification of Com- Yes, as described in No. However, you may be re- No. However, you may be required pliance Status or Annual Com- §§ 63.2860(d) and 63.2861(a). quired to submit an annual to submit an annual compliance pliance Certification as appro- compliance certification for pre- certification for previous operating priate? vious operating months, if the months, if the deadline for the an- deadline for the annual compli- nual compliance certification hap- ance certification happens to pens to occur during the malfunc- occur during the initial startup tion period. period. (h)(1) Submit a Deviation Notifi- Yes ...... No, these requirements are not No, these requirements are not ap- cation Report by the end of the applicable because your source plicable because your source is calendar month following the is not required to determine the not required to determine the com- month in which you determined compliance ratio with data re- pliance ratio with data recorded for that the compliance ratio ex- corded for an initial startup pe- a malfunction period. ceeds 1.00 as described in riod. § 63.2861(b) before September 15, 2020? (h)(2) Submit a Deviation Notifi- Yes ...... Yes ...... No. cation Report as described in § 63.2861(b) on and after Sep- tember 15, 2020? (i) Submit a Periodic SSM Report No, a SSM activity is not cat- Yes, before September 15, 2020 Yes. as described in § 63.2861(c)? egorized as normal operation. (j) Submit an Immediate SSM No, a SSM activity is not cat- Yes, only before September 15, Yes, only if your source does not fol- Report as described in egorized as normal operation. 2020 and if your source does low the SSM plan. § 63.2861(d)? not follow the SSM plan. (k) Submit an Initial Startup Re- No ...... Yes ...... No. port as described in § 63.2861(e) on and after Sep- tember 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 § 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 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 15629

■ 5. Section 63.2851 is amended by the items in paragraphs (a)(1) through pollution control equipment and reflect revising paragraph (a) introductory text (8) of this section: the best practices now in use by the and adding paragraph (a)(8) to read as * * * * * industry to minimize emissions. Some follows: (8) On and after September 15, 2020, or all of the procedures may come from if you choose to operate your source plans you developed for other purposes § 63.2851 What is a plan for demonstrating under an initial start-up period subject such as a Standard Operating Procedure compliance? to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2), the items in manual or an Occupational Safety and (a) You must develop and implement paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this Health Administration Process Safety a written plan for demonstrating section: Management plan. To qualify as a SSM compliance that provides the detailed (i) Your site-specific operating limits, plan, other such plans must meet all the procedures you will follow to monitor and their basis, for temperature and applicable requirements of these and record data necessary for pressure for the desolventizing and oil NESHAP. The provisions of this section distillation units associated with solvent do not apply on and after September 15, demonstrating compliance with this recovery. 2020. subpart. Procedures followed for (ii) A detailed description of all ■ quantifying solvent loss from the source 7. Section 63.2853 is amended by: methods of measurement your source ■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(2) and amount of oilseed processed vary will use to measure temperature and from source to source because of site- introductory text; pressure, including the measurement ■ specific factors such as equipment b. Revising the heading for Table 1 of frequency. § 63.2853 in paragraph (a)(2); design characteristics and operating * * * * * ■ c. Adding Table 2 of § 63.2853(a)(2) to conditions. Typical procedures include ■ 6. Section 63.2852 is revised to read paragraph (a)(2); and one or more accurate measurement as follows: ■ d. Revising paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(5)(i), methods such as weigh scales, and (c)(1), (3), and (4). volumetric displacement, and material § 63.2852 What is a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan? The revisions and addition read as mass balances. Because the industry follows: does not have a uniform set of Before September 15, 2020, you must procedures, you must develop and develop a written SSM plan in § 63.2853 How do I determine the actual implement your own site-specific plan accordance with § 63.6(e)(3). You must solvent loss? for demonstrating compliance before the complete the SSM plan before the * * * * * compliance date for your source. You compliance date for your source. You (a) * * * must also incorporate the plan for must also keep the SSM plan on-site (2) Source operating status. You must demonstrating compliance by reference and readily available as long as the categorize the operating status of your source is operational. The SSM plan in the source’s title V permit and keep source for each recorded time interval in provides detailed procedures for the plan on-site and readily available as accordance with criteria in Table 1 or operating and maintaining your source long as the source is operational. If you Table 2 of this section, as follows: to minimize emissions during a make any changes to the plan for qualifying SSM event for which the TABLE 1 OF § 63.2853(a)(2)—CAT- demonstrating compliance, then you source chooses the § 63.2850(e)(2) EGORIZING YOUR SOURCE OPER- must keep all previous versions of the malfunction period, or the plan and make them readily available ATING STATUS BEFORE SEPTEMBER § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2) initial startup 15, 2020 for inspection for at least 5 years after period. The SSM plan must specify a each revision. The plan for program of corrective action for demonstrating compliance must include malfunctioning process and air * * * * *

TABLE 2 OF § 63.2853(a)(2)—CATEGORIZING YOUR SOURCE OPERATING STATUS ON AND AFTER SEPTEMBER 15, 2020

Then your source operating status If during a recorded time interval . . . is . . .

(vi) Your source processes any amount of listed oilseed and source is not operating under an initial startup A normal operating period. 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 A nonoperating period. 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) .. An initial startup period. (ix) Your source processes agricultural products not defined as listed oilseed ...... An exempt period.

(3) Measuring the beginning and actual solvent loss inventory, as (i) Solvent destroyed in a control ending solvent inventory. You are described in § 63.2862(c)(1). In general, device. You may use a control device to required to measure and record the you must measure and record the reduce solvent emissions to meet the solvent inventory on the beginning and solvent inventory only when the source emission standard. The use of a control ending dates of each normal operating is actively processing any type of device does not alter the emission limit period that occurs during an operating agricultural product. When the source is for the source. If you use a control month. You must consistently follow not active, some or all of the solvent device that reduces solvent emissions the procedures described in your plan working capacity is transferred to through destruction of the solvent for demonstrating compliance, as solvent storage tanks which can instead of recovery, then determine the specified in § 63.2851, to determine the artificially inflate the solvent inventory. gallons of solvent that enter the control extraction solvent inventory, and * * * * * device and are destroyed there during maintain readily available records of the (5) * * * each normal operating period. All

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 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 (3) Before September 15, 2020, ratio, and must include the items in during a normal operating period can be malfunction periods as described in paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (5) through subtracted from the total solvent loss. § 63.2850(e)(2). (8) of this section if you deviate from the Examples of destructive emission (4) Exempt operation periods as work practice standard: control devices include catalytic described in paragraph (a)(2) of this * * * * * incinerators, boilers, or flares. Identify section. (5) Beginning on September 15, 2020, and describe, in your plan for ■ 8. Section 63.2855 is amended by the number of deviations and for each demonstrating compliance, each type of revising paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(5)(i), and deviation the date and duration of each reasonable and sound measurement (c)(3) to read as follows: deviation. Flag and provide an method that you use to quantify the explanation for any deviation from the gallons of solvent entering and exiting § 63.2855 How do I determine the quantity compliance ratio for which a deviation of oilseed processed? the control device and to determine the report is being submitted for more than destruction efficiency of the control * * * * * one consecutive month (i.e., include a device. You may use design evaluations (a) * * * reference to the original date and to document the gallons of solvent (3) Measuring the beginning and reporting of the deviation). If the destroyed or removed by the control ending inventory for each oilseed. You explanation provides that corrective device instead of performance testing are required to measure and record the actions have returned the affected under § 63.7. The design evaluations oilseed inventory on the beginning and unit(s) to its normal operation, you are must be based on the procedures and ending dates of each normal operating not required to include the items in options described in § 63.985(b)(1)(i)(A) period that occurs during an operating paragraphs (b)(6) and (7) of this section. through (C) or § 63.11, as appropriate. month. You must consistently follow (6) Beginning on September 15, 2020, All data, assumptions, and procedures the procedures described in your plan a statement of the cause of each used in such evaluations must be for demonstrating compliance, as deviation (including unknown cause, if documented and available for specified in § 63.2851, to determine the applicable). inspection. If you use performance oilseed inventory on an as received (7) Beginning on September 15, 2020, testing to determine solvent flow rate to basis and maintain readily available for each deviation, a list of the affected the control device or destruction records of the oilseed inventory as sources or equipment, an estimate of the efficiency of the device, follow the described by § 63.2862(c)(3). quantity of HAP emitted over the procedures as outlined in § 63.997(e)(1) * * * * * emission requirements of § 63.2840, and and (2) and the requirements in (5) * * * a description of the method used to paragraph (a)(5)(i)(A) of this section. (i) Oilseed that molds or otherwise estimate the emissions. Instead of periodic performance testing become unsuitable for processing. (8) A description of the deviation to demonstrate continued good * * * * * from the work practice standard during operation of the control device, you may (c) * * * the initial startup period, including the develop a monitoring plan, following (3) Before September 15, 2020, records of § 63.2862(f) for the deviation. the procedures outlined in § 63.988(c) malfunction periods as described in (c) Periodic startup, shutdown, and and using operational parametric § 63.2850(e)(2). malfunction report. Before September measurement devices such as fan * * * * * 15, 2020, if you choose to operate your parameters, percent measurements of source under an initial startup period ■ 9. Section 63.2861 is amended by lower explosive limits, and combustion subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2) or a ■ a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory temperature. malfunction period subject to text; § 63.2850(e)(2), you must submit a (A) On or after September 15, 2020, ■ b. Adding paragraphs (b)(5) through periodic SSM report by the end of the you must conduct all performance tests (8); calendar month following each month under such conditions as the ■ c. Revising paragraphs (c) in which the initial startup period or Administrator specifies to you based on introductory text and (d) introductory malfunction period occurred. The representative performance of the text; and periodic SSM report must include the affected source for the period being ■ d. Adding paragraphs (e) through (i). items in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of tested. Representative conditions The revisions and additions read as this section. The provisions of this exclude periods of startup and follows: shutdown unless specified by the paragraph (c) do not apply on and after Administrator. You may not conduct § 63.2861 What reports must I submit and September 15, 2020. performance tests during periods of when? * * * * * malfunction. You must record the * * * * * (d) Immediate SSM reports. Before process information that is necessary to (b) Deviation notification report. September 15, 2020, if you handle a document operating conditions during Submit a deviation report for each SSM during an initial startup period the test and include in such record an compliance determination you make in subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2) or a explanation to support that such which the compliance ratio exceeds malfunction period subject to conditions represent normal operation. 1.00 as determined under § 63.2840(c) § 63.2850(e)(2) differently from Upon request, you shall make available or if you deviate from the work practice procedures in the SSM plan and the to the Administrator such records as standard for an initial startup period relevant emission requirements in may be necessary to determine the subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2). § 63.2840 are exceeded, then you must conditions of performance tests. Submit the deviation report by the end submit an immediate SSM report. (B) [Reserved] of the month following the calendar Immediate SSM reports consist of a month in which you determined the telephone call or facsimile transmission (c) * * * deviation. The deviation notification to the responsible agency within 2 (1) Nonoperating periods as described report must include the items in working days after starting actions in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this inconsistent with the SSM plan, * * * * * section if you exceed the compliance followed by a letter within 7 working

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 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 15631

days after the end of the event. The (f) or (g) of this section is CBI, you must CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA letter must include the items in submit a complete file, including system outage for failure to timely paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. comply with the reporting requirement. section. The provisions of this The file must be generated through the To assert a claim of EPA system outage, paragraph (d) do not apply on and after use of EPA’s ERT or an alternate you must meet the requirements September 15, 2020. electronic file consistent with the XML outlined in paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) * * * * * schema listed on EPA’s ERT website. of this section. (e) Initial startup period reports. If Submit the file on a compact disc, flash (1) You must have been or will be you choose to operate your source under drive, or other commonly used precluded from accessing CEDRI and an initial startup period subject to electronic storage medium and clearly submitting a required report within the § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2) on and after mark the medium as CBI. Mail the time prescribed due to an outage of September 15, 2020, you must submit electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/ either EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems. an initial startup period report within CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group (2) The outage must have occurred 30 days after the initial startup period Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD within the period of time beginning five ends. The report must include the items C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, business days prior to the date that the in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this NC 27703. The same file with the CBI submission is due. section. omitted must be submitted to EPA via (3) The outage may be planned or (1) The name and address of the EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph unplanned. (4) You must submit notification to owner or operator. (f)(1) of this section. (g) Submitting reports electronically. the Administrator in writing as soon as (2) The physical address of the On and after September 15, 2020, you possible following the date you first vegetable oil production process. must submit the initial notification knew, or through due diligence should (3) A compliance certification required in § 63.2860(b) and the annual have known, that the event may cause indicating whether the source was in compliance certification, deviation or has caused a delay in reporting. compliance with the work practice report, and initial startup report (5) You must provide to the standard of § 63.2840(h). required in § 63.2861(a), (b), and (e) to Administrator a written description (f) Performance tests. On and after the EPA via CEDRI, which can be identifying: September 15, 2020, if you conduct accessed through the EPA’s CDX (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX performance tests to determine solvent (https://cdx.epa.gov). The owner or or CEDRI was accessed and the system flow rate to a control device or operator must upload to CEDRI an was unavailable; destruction efficiency of a control electronic copy of each applicable (ii) A rationale for attributing the device according to the requirements of notification in portable document delay in reporting beyond the regulatory § 63.2853(a)(5)(i), within 60 days after format (PDF). The applicable deadline to EPA system outage; the date of completing each notification must be submitted by the (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to performance test, you must submit the deadline specified in this subpart, minimize the delay in reporting; and results of the performance test following regardless of the method in which the (iv) The date by which you propose to the procedures specified in paragraphs reports are submitted. You must use the report, or if you have already met the (f)(1) and (2) of this section. appropriate electronic report template reporting requirement at the time of the (1) Data collected using test methods on the CEDRI website (https:// notification, the date you reported. supported by EPA’s Electronic Reporting www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air- (6) The decision to accept the claim Tool (ERT) as listed on EPA’s ERT emissions/compliance-and-emissions- of EPA system outage and allow an website (https://www.epa.gov/ data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this extension to the reporting deadline is electronic-reporting-air-emissions/ subpart. The date report templates solely within the discretion of the electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time become available will be listed on the Administrator. of the test. Submit the results of the CEDRI website. The report must be (7) In any circumstance, the report performance test to EPA via the submitted by the deadline specified in must be submitted electronically as Compliance and Emissions Data this subpart, regardless of the method in soon as possible after the outage is Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can which the report is submitted. If you resolved. be accessed through EPA’s Central Data claim some of the information required (i) Claims of force majeure. If you are Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI, required to electronically submit a The data must be submitted in a file submit a complete report, including report through CEDRI in EPA’s CDX, format generated through the use of information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. you may assert a claim of force majeure EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may The report must be generated using the for failure to timely comply with the submit an electronic file consistent with appropriate form on the CEDRI website. reporting requirement. To assert a claim the extensible markup language (XML) Submit the file on a compact disc, flash of force majeure, you must meet the schema listed on EPA’s ERT website. drive, or other commonly used requirements outlined in paragraphs (2) Data collected using test methods electronic storage medium and clearly (i)(1) through (5) of this section. that are not supported by EPA’s ERT as mark the medium as CBI. Mail the (1) You may submit a claim if a force listed on EPA’s ERT website at the time electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/ majeure event is about to occur, occurs, of the test. The results of the CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group or has occurred or there are lingering performance test must be included as an Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD effects from such an event within the attachment in the ERT or an alternate C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, period of time beginning five business electronic file consistent with the XML NC 27703. The same file with the CBI days prior to the date the submission is schema listed on EPA’s ERT website. omitted must be submitted to EPA via due. For the purposes of this section, a Submit the ERT generated package or EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this force majeure event is defined as an alternative file to EPA via CEDRI. paragraph. event that will be or has been caused by (3) Confidential business information (h) Claims of EPA system outage. If circumstances beyond the control of the (CBI). If you claim some of the you are required to electronically affected facility, its contractors, or any information submitted under paragraph submit a report through CEDRI in EPA’s entity controlled by the affected facility

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 15632 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

that prevents you from complying with according to the requirements of (6) Information to indicate the solvent the requirement to submit a report § 63.2851. condensers were operating at all times electronically within the time period (c) If your source processes any listed during the initial startup period. prescribed. Examples of such events are oilseed, record the items in paragraphs (g) On and after September 15, 2020, acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, (c)(1) through (3) of this section: keep the records of deviations specified earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or * * * * * in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this terrorism, or equipment failure or safety section for each compliance (3) * * * hazard beyond the control of the determination you make in which the affected facility (e.g., large scale power (ii) The operating status of your compliance ratio exceeds 1.00 as outage). source, as described in § 63.2853(a)(2). determined under § 63.2840(c) or if you (2) You must submit notification to On the log for each type of listed oilseed deviate from the work practice standard the Administrator in writing as soon as that is not being processed during a for an initial startup period subject to possible following the date you first normal operating period, you must § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2). knew, or through due diligence should record which type of listed oilseed is (1) The number of deviations, and the have known, that the event may cause being processed in addition to the date and duration of each deviation. For or has caused a delay in reporting. source operating status. deviations from the compliance ratio, (3) You must provide to the * * * * * the date of the deviation is the date the Administrator: (d) After your source has processed compliance ratio determination is made. (i) A written description of the force listed oilseed for 12 operating months, The duration of the deviation from the majeure event; record the items in paragraphs (d)(1) compliance ratio is the length of time (ii) A rationale for attributing the through (5) of this section by the end of taken to address the cause of the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory the calendar month following each deviation, including the duration of any deadline to the force majeure event; operating month: malfunction, and return the affected (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to * * * * * unit(s) to its normal or usual manner of minimize the delay in reporting; and (e) Before September 15, 2020, for operation. For deviations from the work (iv) The date by which you propose to practice standard during the initial report, or if you have already met the each SSM event subject to an initial startup period as described in startup period, the date of the deviation reporting requirement at the time of the is the date(s) when the facility fails to notification, the date you reported. § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2), or a malfunction period as described in comply with any of the work practice (4) The decision to accept the claim standard in § 63.2840(h). The duration of force majeure and allow an extension § 63.2850(e)(2), record the items in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this of the deviation from the work practice to the reporting deadline is solely standard is the length of time taken to within the discretion of the section by the end of the calendar month following each month in which return to the work practice standards. Administrator. (2) A statement of the cause of each the initial startup period or malfunction (5) In any circumstance, the reporting deviation (including unknown cause, if period occurred. The provisions of this must occur as soon as possible after the applicable). force majeure event occurs. paragraph (e) do not apply on and after (3) For each deviation, a list of the ■ 10. Section 63.2862 is amended by: September 15, 2020. affected sources or equipment, an ■ a. Revising paragraph (b) and * * * * * estimate of the quantity of each paragraph (c) introductory text; (f) On and after September 15, 2020, regulated pollutant emitted over any ■ b. Revising paragraphs (c)(3)(ii), (d) for each initial startup period subject to emission limit, and a description of the introductory text, and (e) introductory § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2), record the method used to estimate the emissions. text; and items in paragraphs (f)(1) through (6) of (4) Actions taken to minimize ■ c. Adding paragraphs (f) through (h). this section by the end of the calendar emissions in accordance with The revisions and additions read as month following each month in which § 63.2840(g), and any corrective actions follows: the initial startup period occurred. taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. § 63.2862 What records must I keep? (1) A description and dates of the initial startup period, and reason it (5) If you deviate from the work * * * * * qualifies as an initial startup. practice standard for an initial startup (b) Before September 15, 2020, period, a description of the deviation prepare a plan for demonstrating (2) An estimate of the solvent loss in gallons for the duration of the initial from the work practice standard. compliance (as described in § 63.2851) (h) Any records required to be and a SSM plan (as described in startup or malfunction period with supporting documentation. maintained by this part that are § 63.2852). In these two plans, describe submitted electronically via EPA’s (3) Nominal design rate of the the procedures you will follow in CEDRI may be maintained in electronic extractor and operating rate of the obtaining and recording data, and format. This ability to maintain extractor for the duration of the initial determining compliance under normal electronic copies does not affect the startup period, or permitted production operations or a SSM subject to the requirement for facilities to make rate and actual production rate of your § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2) initial startup records, data, and reports available source for the duration of the initial period or the § 63.2850(e)(2) upon request to a delegated air agency startup period. malfunction period. Complete both or EPA as part of an on-site compliance plans before the compliance date for (4) Measured values for temperature evaluation. and pressure for the desolventizing and your source and keep them on-site and ■ 11. Section 63.2870 is amended by oil distillation units associated with readily available as long as the source is revising Table 1 to § 63.2870 to read as solvent recovery. operational. On and after September 15, follows: 2020, the requirement to prepare a SSM (5) Information to indicate the mineral plan no longer applies, and the plan for oil absorption system was operating at § 63.2870 What parts of the General demonstrating compliance must only all times during the initial startup Provisions apply to me? describe the procedures you develop period. * * * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 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 15633

TABLE 1 TO § 63.2870—APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A, TO 40 CFR, PART 63, SUBPART GGGG

Brief description of General provisions citation Subject of citation requirement Applies to subpart Explanation

§ 63.1 ...... Applicability ...... Initial applicability de- Yes. termination; appli- cability after stand- ard established; permit require- ments; extensions; notifications. § 63.2 ...... Definitions ...... Definitions for part 63 Yes ...... Except as specifically provided in this sub- standards. part. § 63.3 ...... Units and abbrevia- Units and abbrevia- Yes. tions. tions for part 63 standards. § 63.4 ...... Prohibited activities Prohibited activities; Yes. and circumvention. compliance date; circumvention; sev- erability. § 63.5 ...... Construction/recon- Applicability; applica- Yes ...... Except for subsections of § 63.5 as listed struction. tions; approvals. below. § 63.5(c) ...... [Reserved]. § 63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H) ...... Application for ap- Type and quantity of No ...... All sources emit HAP. Subpart GGGG proval. HAP, operating pa- does not require control from specific rameters. emission points. § 63.5(d)(1)(ii)(I) ...... [Reserved]. § 63.5(d)(1)(iii), (d)(2), Application for ap- No ...... The requirements of the application for ap- (d)(3)(ii). proval. proval for new, reconstructed and signifi- cantly modified sources are described in § 63.2860(b) and (c) of subpart GGGG. General provision requirements for iden- tification of HAP emission points or esti- mates of actual emissions are not re- quired. Descriptions of control and meth- ods, and the estimated and actual con- trol efficiency of such do not apply. Re- quirements for describing control equip- ment and the estimated and actual con- trol efficiency of such equipment apply only to control equipment to which the subpart GGGG requirements for quanti- fying. § 63.6 ...... Applicability of Gen- Applicability ...... Yes ...... Except for subsections of § 63.6 as listed eral Provisions. below. § 63.6(b)(1)–(3) ...... Compliance dates, ...... No ...... Section 63.2834 of subpart GGGG speci- new and recon- fies the compliance dates for new and structed sources. reconstructed sources. § 63.6(b)(6) ...... [Reserved]. § 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ...... [Reserved]. § 63.6(d) ...... [Reserved]. § 63.6(e)(1)(i) ...... Operation and Main- ...... Yes, before Sep- See § 63.2840(g) for general duty require- tenance. tember 15, 2020. ment No, on or after September 15, 2020. § 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ...... Operation and Main- Requirement to cor- Yes, before Sep- See § 63.2840(g) for general duty require- tenance. rect malfunctions tember 15, 2020]. ment. as soon as prac- No, on or after ticable. September 15, 2020. § 63.6(e)(3)(i) through Operation and main- ...... Yes, before Sep- Minimize emissions to the extent prac- (e)(3)(ii) and tenance require- tember 15, 2020. ticable. On or after September 15, 2020, § 63.6(e)(3)(v) through ments. see § 63.2840(g) for general duty re- (vii). quirement. § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) ...... Operation and main- ...... No ...... Minimize emissions to the extent prac- tenance require- ticable. On or after September 15, 2020, ments. see § 63.2840(g) for general duty re- quirement. § 63.6(e)(3)(iv) ...... Operation and main- ...... No ...... Report SSM and in accordance with tenance require- § 63.2861(c) and (d). ments.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 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

Brief description of General provisions citation Subject of citation requirement Applies to subpart Explanation

§ 63.6(e)(3)(viii) ...... Operation and main- ...... Yes, before Sep- Except, before September 15, 2020, report tenance require- tember 15, 2020. each revision to your SSM plan in ac- ments. No, on or after cordance with § 63.2861(c) rather than September 15, § 63.10(d)(5) as required under 2020. § 63.6(e)(3)(viii). § 63.6(e)(3)(ix) ...... Title V permit ...... Yes, before Sep- tember 15, 2020. No, on or after September 15, 2020. § 63.6(f)(1) ...... Compliance with Comply with emis- Yes, before Sep- nonopacity emis- sion standards at tember 15, 2020. sion standards ex- all times except No, on or after cept during SSM. during SSM. September 15, 2020. § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ...... Methods for Deter- ...... Yes. mining Compliance. § 63.6(g) ...... Use of an Alternative ...... Yes. Standard. § 63.6(h) ...... Opacity/Visible emis- ...... No ...... Subpart GGGG has no opacity or VE sion (VE) stand- standards. ards. § 63.6(i) ...... Compliance exten- Procedures and cri- Yes.. sion. teria for respon- sible agency to grant compliance extension. § 63.6(j) ...... Presidential compli- President may ex- Yes.. ance exemption. empt source cat- egory from require- ment to comply with subpart. § 63.7(e)(1) ...... Performance testing Representative con- Yes, before Sep- See § 63.2853(a)(5)(i)(A) for performance requirements. ditions for perform- tember 15, 2020. testing requirements. ance test. No, on or after September 15, 2020. § 63.7(e)(2)–(4), (f), (g), and Performance testing Schedule, conditions, Yes ...... Subpart GGGG requires performance test- (h). requirements. notifications and ing only if the source applies additional procedures. 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. § 63.8 ...... Monitoring require- ...... No ...... Subpart GGGG does not require moni- ments. toring other than as specified therein. § 63.9 ...... Notification require- Applicability and Yes ...... Except for subsections of § 63.9 as listed ments. state delegation. below. § 63.9(b)(2) ...... Notification require- Initial notification re- No ...... Section 63.2860(a) of subpart GGGG ments. quirements for ex- specifies the requirements of the initial isting sources. notification for existing sources. § 63.9(b)(3)–(5) ...... Notification require- Notification require- Yes ...... Except the information requirements differ ments. ment for certain as described in § 63.2860(b) of subpart new/reconstructed GGGG. sources. § 63.9(e) ...... Notification of per- Notify responsible Yes ...... Applies only if performance testing is per- formance test. agency 60 days formed. ahead. § 63.9(f) ...... Notification of VE/ Notify responsible No ...... Subpart GGGG has no opacity or VE opacity observa- agency 30 days standards. tions. ahead. § 63.9(g) ...... Additional notifica- Notification of per- No ...... Subpart GGGG has no CMS require- tions when using a formance evalua- ments. continuous moni- tion; Notification toring system using COMS data; (CMS). notification that ex- ceeded criterion for relative accuracy.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 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 15635

TABLE 1 TO § 63.2870—APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A, TO 40 CFR, PART 63, SUBPART GGGG— Continued

Brief description of General provisions citation Subject of citation requirement Applies to subpart Explanation

§ 63.9(h) ...... Notification of compli- Contents ...... No ...... Section 63.2860(d) of subpart GGGG ance status. specifies requirements for the notifica- tion of compliance status. § 63.10 ...... Recordkeeping/re- Schedule for report- Yes ...... Except for subsections of § 63.10 as listed porting. ing, record storage. below. § 63.10(b)(2)(i) ...... Recordkeeping ...... Record SSM event ... Yes, before Sep- Before September 15, 2020, applicable to tember 15, 2020. periods when sources must implement No, on or after their SSM plan as specified in subpart September 15, GGGG. On or after September 15, 2020. 2020, meet the requirements of § 63.2862(f). § 63.10(b)(2)(ii)–(iii) ...... Recordkeeping ...... Malfunction of air No ...... Before September 15, 2020, applies only if pollution equip- air pollution control equipment has been ment. 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 Yes, before Sep- tember 15, 2020. No, on or after September 15, 2020. § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) ...... Recordkeeping ...... CMS recordkeeping No ...... Subpart GGGG has no CMS require- ments. § 63.10(b)(2)(viii)–(ix) ...... Recordkeeping ...... Conditions of per- Yes ...... Applies only if performance tests are per- formance test. formed. Subpart GGGG does not have any CMS opacity or VE observation re- quirements. § 63.10(b)(2)(x)–(xii) ...... Recordkeeping ...... CMS, performance No ...... Subpart GGGG does not require CMS. testing, and opac- ity and VE obser- vations record- keeping. § 63.10(c) ...... Recordkeeping ...... Additional CMS rec- No ...... Subpart GGGG does not require CMS. ordkeeping. § 63.10(d)(2) ...... Reporting ...... Reporting perform- Yes ...... Applies only if performance testing is per- ance test results. formed. § 63.10(d)(3) ...... Reporting ...... Reporting opacity or No ...... Subpart GGGG has no opacity or VE VE observations. standards. § 63.10(d)(4) ...... Reporting ...... Progress reports ...... Yes ...... Applies only if a condition of compliance extension exists. § 63.10(d)(5) ...... Reporting ...... SSM reporting ...... No ...... Section 63.2861(c) and (d) specify SSM reporting requirements. § 63.10(e) ...... Reporting ...... Additional CMS re- No ...... Subpart GGGG does not require CMS. ports. § 63.11 ...... Control device re- Requirements for Yes ...... Applies only if your source uses a flare to quirements. flares. control solvent emissions. Subpart GGGG does not require flares. § 63.12 ...... State authority and State authority to en- Yes. delegations. force standards. § 63.13 ...... State/regional ad- Addresses where re- Yes. dresses. ports, notifications, and requests are sent. § 63.14 ...... Incorporation by ref- Test methods incor- Yes. erence. porated by ref- erence. § 63.15 ...... Availability of infor- Public and confiden- Yes. mation and con- tial information. fidentiality.

■ 12. Section 63.2872 is amended in ■ b. Adding a definition in alphabetical The revisions and addition read as paragraph (c) by: order for ‘‘Nonoperating month’’; and follows: ■ a. Revising the definitions for ■ c. Revising the definitions of ‘‘Normal § 63.2872 What definitions apply to this ‘‘Compliance ratio’’, ‘‘Hazardous air operating period’’ and ‘‘Operating subpart? pollutant (HAP)’’, ‘‘Initial startup month’’. period’’, and ‘‘Malfunction period’’; * * * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3 15636 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Compliance ratio means a ratio of the for your source. The initial startup operating status does not apply during actual HAP loss in gallons from the period following initial startup of a new any period in which the source operates previous 12 operating months to an or reconstructed source may not exceed under an initial startup period as allowable HAP loss in gallons, which is 6 calendar months. The initial startup described in § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2), or, determined by using oilseed solvent loss period following a significant before September 15, 2020, a factors in Table 1 of § 63.2840, the modification may not exceed 3 calendar malfunction period as described in weighted average volume fraction of months. Solvent and oilseed inventory § 63.2850(e)(2). HAP in solvent received for the information recorded during the initial Normal operating period or normal previous 12 operating months, and the startup period is excluded from use in operation means any period of time in tons of each type of listed oilseed any compliance ratio determinations. which a source processes a listed processed in the previous 12 operating * * * * * oilseed that is not categorized as an months. Months during which no listed Malfunction period means a period of initial startup period as described in oilseed is processed, or months during time between the beginning and end of § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2), or, before which the § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2) initial a process malfunction and the time September 15, 2020, a malfunction startup period or, before September 15, reasonably necessary for a source to period as described in § 63.2850(e)(2). 2020, the § 63.2850(e)(2) malfunction correct the malfunction for which you At the beginning and ending dates of a period applies, are excluded from this choose to operate the source under a normal operating period, solvent and calculation. Equation 2 of § 63.2840 is malfunction period subject to oilseed inventory information is used to calculate this value. If the value § 63.2850(e)(2). This period may include recorded and included in the is less than or equal to 1.00, the source the duration of an unscheduled process compliance ratio determination. is in compliance. If the value is greater shutdown, continued operation during a * * * * * than 1.00, the source is deviating from malfunction, or the subsequent process compliance. startup after a shutdown resulting from Operating month means any calendar * * * * * a malfunction. During a malfunction or accounting month in which a source Hazardous air pollutant (HAP) means period, a source complies with the processes any quantity of listed oilseed, any substance or mixture of substances standards by minimizing HAP excluding any entire calendar or listed as a hazardous air pollutant under emissions to the extent practicable. accounting month in which the source section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, solvent and oilseed inventory operated under an initial startup period * * * * * information recorded during a as described in § 63.2850(c)(2) or (d)(2), Initial startup period means a period malfunction period is excluded from or, before September 15, 2020, a of time from the initial startup date of use in any compliance ratio malfunction period as described in a new, reconstructed, or significantly determinations. § 63.2850(e)(2). An operating month modified source, for which you choose * * * * * may include time intervals to operate the source under an initial Nonoperating month means any characterized by several types of startup period subject to § 63.2850(c)(2) entire calendar or accounting month in operating status. However, an operating or (d)(2), until the date your source which a source processes no agricultural month must have at least one normal operates for 15 consecutive days at or product. operating period. above 90 percent of the nominal design Nonoperating period means any * * * * * rate of the extractor or at or above 90 period of time in which a source [FR Doc. 2020–04459 Filed 3–17–20; 8:45 am] percent of the permitted production rate processes no agricultural product. This BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Mar 17, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\18MRR3.SGM 18MRR3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3