[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 18, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15608-15636]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04459]

Vol. 85

Wednesday,

No. 53

March 18, 2020

Part III

 Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0208; FRL-10006-06-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU17

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Mr. Bill Schrock, Natural Resources Group, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact
Mr. Matthew Woody, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information about the applicability
of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Ms. Maria Malave, Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

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

    Background information. On June 27, 2019, the EPA proposed
revisions to the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP
in conjunction with our RTR for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable
Oil Production source category (84 FR 30812). In this action, we are
finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize some of
the more significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed
rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other
public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those
comments is available in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses
for the Risk and Technology Review for Solvent Extraction For Vegetable
Oil Production, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0208. A ``track
changes'' version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
changes in this action is available in the docket.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production
source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from
the source category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the Solvent Extraction for
Vegetable Oil Production source category in our June 27, 2019, RTR
proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the Solvent

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/solvent-extraction-vegetable-oil-production-national-emission.
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same
website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information
includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites
for the RTR source categories.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

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

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

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

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

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

    The EPA promulgated the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil
Production NESHAP on April 12, 2001 (66 FR 19006). The standards are
codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG. As promulgated in 2001 and
further amended on April 5, 2002 (67 FR 16317), and September 1, 2004
(69 FR 53338), the NESHAP regulates HAP emissions from solvent
extraction for vegetable oil production processes at a facility that is
a major source of HAP emissions. The affected source is each vegetable
oil production process. A vegetable oil production process means the
equipment comprising a continuous process for producing crude vegetable
oil and meal products, including specialty soybean products, in which
oil is removed from oilseeds listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2840
through direct contact with an organic solvent. Process equipment
typically includes the following components: oilseed preparation
operations (including conditioning, drying, dehulling, and cracking),
solvent extractors, desolventizer-toasters, meal dryers, meal coolers,
meal conveyor systems, oil distillation units, solvent evaporators and
condensers, solvent recovery system (also referred to as a mineral oil
absorption system), vessels storing solvent-laden materials, and crude
meal packaging and storage vessels. A vegetable oil production process
does not include vegetable oil refining operations (including
operations such as bleaching, hydrogenation, and deodorizing) and
operations that engage in additional chemical treatment of crude
soybean meals produced in specialty desolventizer units (including
operations such as soybean isolate production). The source category
covered by this MACT standard currently includes 89 facilities.
    The primary HAP emitted from vegetable oil production processes is
n-hexane. The EPA does not consider n-hexane classifiable as a human
carcinogen. However, short-term exposure to n-hexane can cause
reactions such as irritation, dizziness, headaches, and nausea. Long-
term exposure can cause permanent nerve damage.
    The current NESHAP controls facility-wide n-hexane emissions by
setting emission limitations based on the number of gallons of HAP lost
per ton of oilseeds processed, expressed as oilseed solvent loss
ratios. Facilities demonstrate compliance by calculating a compliance
ratio comparing the actual HAP loss to the allowable HAP loss for the
previous 12 operating months. Allowable HAP loss is based on the
oilseed solvent loss ratios provided in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2840 of
the rule for new and existing sources. Compliance is demonstrated when
the facility's calculated compliance ratio is less than or equal to
1.00 (i.e., the actual HAP loss is no greater than the calculated
allowable HAP loss). Determination of compliance with the requirements
of the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP requires
the facility to keep records of the amount of n-hexane purchased, used,
and recovered from the oilseed extraction process, the amount of
oilseed processed, and the volume fraction of each HAP exceeding 1
percent in the extraction solvent used. Facilities may also adjust
their solvent loss to account for cases where solvent is routed through
a closed vent system

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

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

    On June 27, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production
NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG, that took into consideration the
RTR analyses. In the proposed rule, we proposed that the risks from the
source category are acceptable and the current standards provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health. In addition, pursuant
to the technology review for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil
Production source category, we proposed no revisions to the current
standards based on these analyses.
    We proposed revisions to the SSM provisions of the standards to
ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club
v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Specifically, the Court
vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR
63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions
standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM
exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112
standards apply continuously. We therefore proposed that the standards
would apply at all times, including during startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions (see 40 CFR 63.2840(a) and Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.2870
(General Provisions Applicability Table). Additionally, we proposed to
remove requirements that allowed sources to previously designate a
source operating status period as a ``malfunction period'' and exclude
data collected during the ``malfunction period'' when determining
compliance with the emission standards.\2\ Under the proposed rule,
sources that continue to operate must instead meet the emission
standard requirements for either a normal operating period or the work
practice standards for an initial startup period (if applicable) in 40
CFR 63.2850 and Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. In proposing the revised
standards, the EPA considered whether to set separate standards for
startup and shutdown periods, but only found that separate standards
were necessary for initial startup periods for new or significantly
modified sources. For periods of initial startup following new
construction or significant modification, we proposed work practice
standards and a requirement to establish and follow site-specific
operating ranges for temperature and vacuum for the desolventizing and
oil distillation units associated with solvent recovery, as well as
associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements (e.g., initial
startup report) for these periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    We proposed to require electronic reporting of initial
notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance
certifications, deviation reports, and performance test reports through
the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). We also proposed minor
clarifications and corrections to five definitions (i.e., ``Compliance
ratio,'' ``Nonoperating period,'' ``Normal operating period,''
``Operating month,'' and ``Hazardous air pollutant (HAP)'') and to 40
CFR 63.2840(a)(1) and (b)(1), 40 CFR 63.2853(a)(2), 40 CFR
63.2855(a)(3), and Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850. Refer to section IV.D of
the June 27, 2019, proposal preamble for further discussion of these
proposed amendments and the EPA's rationale for these changes (84 FR
60825).

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable
Oil Production source category. This action also finalizes other
changes to the NESHAP, including revisions to the SSM provisions of the
MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent with the Court
decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
provisions for electronic reporting of initial notifications, initial
startup reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports,
and performance test reports; and other minor editorial and technical
changes. This action reflects several changes to the proposed rule in
consideration of comments received during the public comment period as
described in section IV of this preamble.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This rule also finalizes, as proposed, revisions to several other
NESHAP requirements. To increase the ease and efficiency of data
submittal and data accessibility, we are finalizing a requirement that
owners and operators of facilities in the Solvent Extraction for
Vegetable Oil Production source category submit electronic copies of
initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance
certifications, deviation reports, and performance test reports through
the EPA's CDX using the CEDRI. The initial notifications, initial
startup reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports,
and performance test reports are required to be submitted according to
the deadlines specified in 40 CFR 63.2861. We also are finalizing, as
proposed, provisions that allow

facility operators the ability to seek extensions for submitting
electronic reports for circumstances beyond the control of the
facility, i.e., for a possible outage in the CDX or CEDRI or for a
force majeure event in the time just prior to a report's due date, as
well as the process to assert such a claim.
    The EPA is finalizing several minor technical editorial changes to
the rule. The EPA is finalizing several definitions in 40 CFR 63.2872
to harmonize with the removal of the SSM requirements and to clarify
existing provisions. The definitions of ``Compliance ratio,''
``Nonoperating period,'' ``Normal operating period,'' and ``Operating
month'' are revised in the final rule to clarify that we have removed
malfunction periods as a distinct source operating status during which
no limits or work practices applied. The definition of ``Normal
operating period'' is also revised to clarify that this definition also
applies to ``normal operation.''
    The EPA is revising the definition of ``Hazardous Air Pollutant
(HAP)'' as proposed to remove the reference to the date of April 12,
2001. Finally, the EPA is adding a definition for ``Nonoperating
month'' as proposed.
    The EPA is finalizing minor revisions to 40 CFR 63.2840(a)(1) and
(b)(1), 40 CFR 63.2853(a)(2), and 40 CFR 63.2855(a)(3) to remove text
that is redundant with the definition of ``Operating month'' in 40 CFR
63.2872. Finally, the EPA is revising Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.2850 to
correct a typographical error in row ``(a)'' for malfunction periods.
    The legal rationale and detailed changes for these revisions are
set forth in the proposed rule (see 84 FR 30830).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
    As noted in our proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting approach, with an
analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers
all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and
includes a presumptive limit on MIR of ``approximately 1-in-10
thousand'' (see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). We weigh all health
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the
cancer MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum cancer TOSHI, the maximum
acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of
cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and the risk
estimation uncertainties.
    Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse
environmental effects have changed. For the reasons explained in the
proposed rule, we determined that the risks from the Solvent Extraction
for Vegetable Oil Production source category are acceptable, and the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, we are
not revising the standards for this source category pursuant to CAA
section 112(f)(2) based on the residual risk review, and we are
readopting the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2).

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

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

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

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

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

    \3\ We proposed to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR
63.2840(g) to reflect the general duty to minimize emissions, while
eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption
(see 84 FR 30828).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and was not instead
caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2
(definition of malfunction). If the EPA determines in a particular case
that an enforcement action against a source for violation of an
emission standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all
defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will
determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for
citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an
administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine
whether administrative penalties are appropriate'' (84 FR 30828).
    Comment: We received one comment requesting clarification on the
revised reporting and recordkeeping requirements for deviations. The
commenter requested that the EPA clarify how a facility should
designate the date a deviation occurred. The commenter recommended that
because there is a single compliance ratio determination for an
operating month, the rule should specify that a deviation be reported
as occurring on the date the compliance ratio determination is made.
The commenter also requested clarification on the duration of a
deviation, noting that solvent loss from a one-time event (like a
malfunction) could cause a deviation for one or more monthly compliance
ratio determinations. The commenter stated it is unreasonable to
require facilities to report events that may last only 1 day as having
a duration of 30 days or even longer, and asked the EPA to clarify if
the deviation reporting requirements only apply to work practice
standards. Finally, the commenter stated the reporting template should
not require facilities to report the time of a deviation; the commenter
urged that the time of day a deviation occurs is not needed to
determine compliance with the standards.
    Response: We agree with the commenter and have revised the
reporting and recordkeeping requirements for deviations for
clarification. Specifically, we have revised the recordkeeping
requirements of 40 CFR 63.2862(g)(1) to clarify that for deviations
from the compliance ratio, the date of the deviation is the date the
compliance ratio determination is made. For deviations from the work
practice standard during the initial startup period, the date of the
deviation is the date when the facility fails to comply with any of the
work practice standard in 40 CFR 63.2840(h) (e.g., if the facility
fails to operate the mineral oil absorption system or the solvent
condenser at all times during the initial startup period, or fails to
meet the site-specific operating limits established by the facility).
These dates must be reported in the deviation notification report
according to the final rule requirements at 40 CFR 63.2861(b)(5). We
have revised 40 CFR 63.2862(g)(1) to clarify that for deviations from
the compliance ratio, the duration of the deviation is the length of
time taken to address the cause of the deviation (including the
duration of any malfunction) and to return the affected unit(s) to its
normal or usual manner of operation. For deviations from the work
practice standard during the initial startup period, the duration of
the deviation is the length of time taken to return to the work
practice standards. The final rule requirements are consistent with the
prior requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) to retain a record of the
``occurrence and duration of each malfunction'' and are necessary to
allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a
standard. Finally, we have revised the final rule requirements to
remove the requirement to record or report the time of a deviation, as
this information is not necessary to determine compliance with the
standard.
    Additional comments on the SSM provisions and our specific
responses to those comments can be found in the document titled Summary
of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for
Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production, which is available in
the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions to
address emissions during periods of SSM?
    We evaluated all the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments to
the SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule (84
FR 30812), we determined that these amendments appropriately remove and
revise provisions related to SSM that are not consistent with the
requirement that the standards apply at all times. Therefore, we are
finalizing the amendments to remove and revise provisions related to
SSM, as proposed, with the exception of the clarifications discussed in
this section.

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

1. What other amendments did we propose for the Solvent Extraction for
Vegetable Oil Production source category?
    We proposed that owners and operators submit electronic copies of
initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance
certifications, deviation reports, and performance test reports through
the EPA's CDX using the CEDRI. For initial notifications, initial
startup reports, annual compliance certifications, and deviation
reports, the proposed rule requires that owners and operators use the
appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. We
also proposed two broad circumstances in which we may provide extension
to these requirements. We proposed at 40 CFR 63.2862(f) that an
extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI
that precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and
submitting required reports. We also proposed at 40 CFR 63.2862(g) that
an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, such as an
act of nature, act of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety
hazards beyond the control of the facility.
    We proposed revisions to several definitions in 40 CFR 63.2872 to
harmonize with the proposed removal of the SSM requirements and to
clarify existing provisions, include revisions to definitions of
``Compliance ratio,'' ``Nonoperating period,'' ``Normal operating
period,'' and ``Operating month'' to clarify where the malfunction
period is excluded, and to the definition of ``Normal operating
period'' to clarify that this definition also applies to ``normal
operation.'' We also proposed to add a definition for ``Nonoperating
month.'' We proposed to revise the definition of ``Hazardous air
pollutant (HAP)'' to remove the reference to the date of April 12,
2001.
    We proposed minor revisions to 40 CFR 63.2840(a)(1) and (b)(1), 40
CFR 63.2853(a)(2), and 40 CFR 63.2855(a)(3) to remove text that is
redundant with the definition of ``Operating month'' in 40 CFR 63.2872.
We also proposed a minor correction to Table 1 of 63.2850 to correct a
typographical error in row ``(a)'' for malfunction periods.

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

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

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

A. What are the affected facilities?

    The EPA estimates that there are 89 vegetable oil production
facilities that are currently subject to the Solvent Extraction for
Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP and would be affected by the final
amendments. The basis of our estimate of affected facilities is
provided in the memorandum, Residual Risk Modeling File Documentation
for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source
Category, which is available in the docket for this action. We
additionally anticipate one new source per year. The EPA received
comment on the proposed rule that some larger facilities may have
significant modifications about once a year, therefore, we assume that
eight existing vegetable oil production facilities may have a
significant modification that could meet the revised requirements for
initial startup periods.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The EPA estimates that annual HAP emissions from the vegetable oil
production facilities that are subject to the NESHAP are approximately
13,500 tpy.\4\ Because the EPA is not revising the emission limits, we
do not anticipate any quantifiable air quality impacts as a result of
these amendments. However, we anticipate that the final requirements,
including the work practice standards for the optional initial startup
period, are at least as stringent as the current rule requirements. The
work practice standards include requirements for facilities to operate
controls, including the mineral oil absorption system and solvent
condensers, at all times during the initial startup period. Facilities
must also establish and follow site-specific operating ranges for
temperature and vacuum for the desolventizing and oil distillation
units associated with solvent recovery. We anticipate these
requirements will minimize emissions during these periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The annual HAP emission estimates include emissions from 88
facilities. Annual emissions are not yet available for one newly
constructed facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The 89 vegetable oil production facilities that would be subject to
the final amendments, and one additional new source per year, would
incur minimal net costs to meet revised recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, some estimated to have costs and some estimated to have
cost savings. Nationwide costs associated with the final requirements
are estimated to total $93,100 over the 3 years following promulgation
of amendments (or $31,033 per year). The EPA believes that the
vegetable oil production facilities that are known to be subject to the
NESHAP can meet the final requirements without incurring additional
capital or operational costs. Therefore, the only costs associated with
the final amendments include a one-time burden for reviewing
requirements of the amended rule, and a one-time burden associated with
recordkeeping and reporting labor costs for initial startup periods for
new, reconstructed, or significantly modified

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

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with a
final rule and the distribution of these costs among affected
facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in
response to a final rule. The total costs associated with the final
rule are estimated to be $93,100 (or $31,033 per year) for the 3 years
following the final rule. This includes a one-time burden for reviewing
requirements of the amended rule, and a one-time burden associated with
the recordkeeping and reporting for initial startup periods for new,
reconstructed, or significantly modified facilities. This is an
estimated average cost of approximately $345 per year per facility.
These costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact,
regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed
by the firms.

E. What are the benefits?

    Although the EPA does not anticipate quantifiable reductions in HAP
emissions as a result of the final amendments, we believe that the
action will result in improvements to the rule. Specifically, the final
amendments revise the standards such that they apply at all times. For
facilities that choose to operate under an initial startup period, the
EPA is finalizing an alternative work practice standard that will
ensure that facilities are operating controls and minimizing emissions
while the source operates under non-steady state production, which we
expect will protect public health and the environment through better
compliance during these periods. Additionally, the final amendments
requiring electronic submittal of initial notifications, initial
startup reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports,
and performance test results will streamline reporting for affected
sources, increase the usefulness of the data and improve data
accessibility for the public, will further assist in the protection of
public health and the environment, and will ultimately result in less
burden on the regulated community. See section IV.D.2 of the preamble
to the proposed rule for more information.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, to examine the
potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated
with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis, which is
an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the
populations living within 5 kilometers (km) and within 50 km of the
facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-
related cancer and noncancer risks from the Solvent Extraction for
Vegetable Oil Production source category across different demographic
groups within the populations living near facilities. When examining
the risk levels of those exposed to emissions from solvent extraction
for vegetable oil production facilities, we found that no one is
exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic
noncancer TOSHI greater than 1.
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of
the preamble to the proposed rule and the technical report titled Risk
and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production, which is
available in the docket for this action.

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

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

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

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

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

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 1947.09. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them.
    The EPA is finalizing amendments that revise provisions pertaining
to emissions during periods of SSM; add requirements for electronic
reporting of certain notifications and reports and performance test
results; and make other minor clarifications and corrections. This
information will be collected to assure compliance with the Solvent

Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of vegetable oil
production processes.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart GGGG).