Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 63

RIN ID: RIN 2060-AH22

FRL ID: [FRL-6703-4]

NOTICE: Part II

DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production

DATES:

Comments. Submit comments on or before July 25, 2000.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by June 15, 2000, a public hearing will be held on June 26, 2000.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for solvent extraction for vegetable oil production. This industry is comprised of facilities that produce crude vegetable oil and meal products by removing oil from listed oilseeds through direct contact with an organic solvent. The EPA has identified solvent extraction for vegetable oil production processes as major sources of a single hazardous air pollutant (HAP), nhexane.

The EPA does not consider nhexane classifiable as a human carcinogen. However, shortterm exposure to high levels of nhexane is reported to cause reactions such as irritations, dizziness, headaches, and nausea. Longterm exposure can cause permanent nerve damage.

This proposed rule will require all existing and new solvent extraction for vegetable oil production processes that are major sources (have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of nhexane) to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The EPA estimates that this proposed rule will reduce nationwide emissions of nhexane from solvent extraction for vegetable oil production processes by approximately 6,800 tons per year (tpy). The emissions reductions achieved by these NESHAP, when combined with the emissions reductions achieved by other similar standards, will provide protection to the public and achieve a primary goal of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by electronic mail (e mail) to: aandrdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Comments submitted by email must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and encryption problems. Comments will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect version 5.1, 6.1, or 8 file format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket number: A9759. No confidential business information (CBI) should be submitted by email. Electronic comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mr. James F. Durham, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room 740B), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 411 W. Chapel Hill Street, Durham, NC 27701. The EPA will disclose information identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by the EPA, the information may be made available to the public without further notice to the commenter.

Public Hearing. A request for a public hearing must be made by the date specified under the DATES section. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Mr. James F. Durham via the information listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing must also call Mr. James F. Durham to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning these proposed emission standards.

Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information considered in the development of this rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and other materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 2607548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's proposed rule will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules http:// www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 5415384.

Regulated Entities. If your facility produces vegetable oil from corn germ, cottonseed, flax, peanuts, rapeseed (for example, canola), safflower, soybeans, or sunflower, it may be a ``regulated entity.'' Categories and entities
[[Page 34253]]
potentially regulated by this action include:
Category SIC code NAICS Examples of regulated entities Industry................................... 2074 311223 Cottonseed oil mills. 2075 311222 Soybean oil mills. 2076 311223 Other vegetable oil mills, excluding soybeans and cottonseed mills. 2079 311223 Other vegetable oil mills, excluding soybeans and cottonseed mills. 2048 311119 Prepared feeds and feed ingredients for animals and fowls, excluding dogs and cats. 2041 311221 Flour and other grain mill product mills. 2046 311221 Wet corn milling. Federal government......................... .............. .............. Not affected. State/local/tribal government.............. .............. .............. Not affected.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a guide regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.2832 of the proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. What is the subject and purpose of this rule?

A. What pollutant emissions will be reduced?

B. What are the health effects of these pollutants? II. Am I subject to this rule?
III. Have these sources been regulated in the past?
IV. What procedures did we follow in developing the proposed rule? V. What are the regulatory requirements for MACT?
VI. How was MACT determined?
VII. What are the proposed emission standards?
VIII. How do I demonstrate compliance?
IX. What are the recordkeeping requirements?

A. What is a plan for demonstrating compliance?

B. What is a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan?

C. What data must I record?
X. What are the reporting requirements?

A. What notifications must I submit?

B. What reports must I submit?
XI. What are the environmental, energy, cost and economic impacts? XII. What are the administrative requirements for this rule?

A. Executive Order 12866, Significant Regulatory Action

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 I. What Is the Subject and Purpose of This Rule?

The CAA requires EPA to establish standards to control HAP emissions from source categories listed under the authority of section 112(c) of the CAA. An initial source category list was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), and it included the ``vegetable oil production'' source category. We have identified 106 existing facilities in the source category.

For purposes of the proposed rule, the title has been changed to ``solvent extraction for vegetable oil production'' to better describe the effected population. The source category list will be amended to reflect this name change in a separate action. For the remainder of this preamble and in the regulatory text, solvent extraction for vegetable oil production processes is called vegetable oil production processes.

The purpose of the proposed rule is to reduce HAP emissions, namely nhexane, from major sources that produce vegetable oil. A major source is one with the potential to emit at least 10 tpy of any one HAP or 25 tpy of any combined HAP. We estimate that all 106 of the existing facilities are major sources of HAP emissions, and the baseline emissions of nhexane from this source category are approximately 27,400 tpy. We estimate the proposed rule will reduce baseline HAP emissions from this source category by approximately 6,800 tpy (25 percent).

A. What Pollutant Emissions Will Be Reduced?

The predominate emissions from solvent extraction for vegetable oil production processes include nhexane (a HAP) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Currently, all existing solvent extraction for vegetable oil production processes use a hexanebased extraction solvent that consists primarily (on average 64 percent) of nhexane, the only HAP. The remaining portion of the solvent consists of hexane isomers which are categorized as VOC. The proposed rule includes requirements to specifically reduce emissions of nhexane. The process of controlling nhexane emissions also reduces emissions of VOC. B. What Are the Health Effects of These Pollutants?

Reported effects on humans from shortterm exposure to high levels of nhexane include irritation of eyes, mucous membranes, throat and skin, as well as impairment of the central nervous system (CNS) including dizziness, giddiness, headaches, and slight nausea. Longterm human exposure from inhalation is associated with a slowing of peripheral nerve signal conduction which causes numbness in the extremities and muscular weakness, as well as changes to the retina which causes blurred vision. Animal exposures to nhexane have resulted in damage to nasal, respiratory tract, lung and peripheral nerve tissues, as well as effects on the CNS. No information is available on nhexane effects on human reproduction or development. Limited laboratory animal data indicate a potential for testicular damage in adults, while several animal studies show no effect on fetal development. Due to a lack of information for humans and inadequate animal evidence, EPA does not consider nhexane classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.

We recognize that the degree of adverse effects to human health from exposure to nhexane can range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the human health effects may be experienced is dependent upon (1) the ambient concentration observed in the [[Page 34254]]
area (as influenced by emission rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain); (2) the frequency of and duration of exposures; (3) characteristics of exposed individuals (genetics, age, preexisting health conditions, and lifestyle), which vary significantly with the population; and (4) pollutantspecific characteristics (toxicity, half life in the environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence.)

The proposed rule reduces nonHAP VOC emissions as well. Emissions of VOC have been associated with a variety of health and welfare impacts. Volatile organic compound emissions, together with nitrogen oxides, are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone, or smog. Exposure to ambient ozone is responsible for a series of public health impacts, such as alterations in lung capacity; eye, nose, and throat irritation; nausea; and aggravation of existing respiratory disease. Ozone exposure can also damage forests and crops.

II. Am I Subject to This Rule?

The proposed rule applies to you if you own or operate any facility with a solvent extraction for vegetable oil production process that is a major source of HAP emissions and processes any combination of listed oilseed. Listed oilseeds refers only to the following agricultural products: corn germ, cottonseed, flax, peanut, rapeseed (for example, canola), safflower, soybean, or sunflower. A solvent extraction for vegetable oil production process is defined in Sec. 63.2872 of the proposed rule as the collection of continuous process equipment and activities that produce crude vegetable oil and meal products by removing oil from listed oilseeds through direct contact with an organic solvent, such as a hexane isomer blend.

III. Have These Sources Been Regulated in the Past?

This is the first Federal regulation affecting air emissions from solvent extraction for vegetable oil production processes.
IV. What Procedures Did We Follow in Developing the Proposed Rule?

First, we identified the types of emission points within the source category that may potentially release HAP. A total of nine emission points were identified including:
(1) Exhaust from the mineral oil adsorber system;
(2) Exhaust from the meal dryer vent;
(3) Exhaust from the meal cooler vent;
(4) Residual losses from crude meal;
(5) Residual losses from crude oil;
(6) Evaporative losses from equipment leaks;
(7) Solvent storage tanks;
(8) Process wastewater collection; and

(9) process startup/shutdowns.

It is not practical from a cost standpoint to quantify losses of HAP from the individual emission points. However, total HAP emissions from the entire source can be determined using records of deliveries and inventories of solvent and oilseed. Thus, the regulatory format for the proposed rule was selected as an emission limit expressed in terms of gallons of HAP lost per ton of oilseed processed.

Next, we investigated possible differences in solvent retention characteristics in the meal among oilseed types and process operations which affect the achievable level of HAP emissions. Based on this investigation, we established 12 performance standards for both existing and new sources. The performance standards are based on the regulatory requirements in the CAA which are described in the next section. Finally, we developed procedures for determining regulatory alternatives for existing and new sources.

V. What Are the Regulatory Requirements for MACT?

The CAA requires a NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable for new or existing sources. We refer to this control level as the maximum achievable control technology. The CAA also provides guidance on determining the least stringent level allowed for a MACT standard, the ``MACT floor.'' For existing sources, MACT floor standards must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources, or by the best performing five sources for source categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources. For new sources, MACT floor standards must be no less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. Control levels more stringent than the MACT floor must reflect consideration of the cost of achieving the emission reductions, any nonair quality, health, and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

VI. How Was MACT Determined?

For this proposed rule, the MACT performance level is an emission limit expressed in terms of gallons of HAP lost per ton of oilseed processed over a 12month compliance period. Each of the 12 performance standards were determined from 2 years of monthly data relating solvent losses (gal) to oilseed processing rates (tons).

To address variability observed in the 2 years of data used in the MACT floor determinations, statistical procedures were applied. Varying climatic patterns from yeartoyear affect oilseed quality and solvent retention characteristics which can directly affect facility operations. Two years of emissions and process information is not sufficient to characterize longterm impacts of climatic patterns on oilseed quality. The nevertobeexceeded format of these proposed MACT standards required us to statistically examine variability over 2 years and make adjustments to the HAP loss performance level of each source to reflect longterm achievability.

For existing sources, the MACT floor for each of the 12 oilseed or process operations was determined as the average of the HAP loss performance levels corresponding to the top performing 12 percent of sources (or the top five for oilseeds or operations with fewer than 30 sources). For new sources, the MACT floor was based on the performance level corresponding to the top ranking source. The new source MACT floors are the same or slightly more stringent than the corresponding existing source MACT floors. More details on the MACT floor determinations can be found in the memorandum entitled ``MACT Floor Determinations for Existing and New Sources in the Vegetable Oil Production Source Category'' (Docket No. A9759).

We also considered a regulatory alternative more stringent than the MACT floor, but rejected it because of a significantly higher cost per ton of emission reductions. This abovethefloor option would have required a catalytic incinerator to control the HAP emissions in the combined exhaust from the meal dryer and cooler vents. A fabric filter would also be required to remove particulate matter in the exhaust stream prior to entering the catalytic incinerator. At present, solvent extraction for vegetable oil production processes have not installed such emission controls on meal dryer or cooler vents. Thus, the MACT floor performance level was determined to represent MACT for this regulation.

More details on the abovethefloor analysis can be found in the memorandum entitled ``Summary of Emission Reductions and Control Costs Associated with Achieving the MACT Floor and a Control Option Above the MACT Floor'' (Docket No. A9759).
[[Page 34255]]

VII. What Are the Proposed Emission Standards?

Separate emission standards are proposed for each oilseed or process operation because solvent retention in the meal differs for each oilseed and process type. The emission standards are presented in Table 1 in Sec. 63.2840 of the proposed rule.

VIII. How Do I Demonstrate Compliance?

To demonstrate compliance, you must perform the following: (1) Develop a plan for demonstrating compliance per Sec. 63.2851 of the proposed rule.
(2) Develop a startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plan per Sec. 63.2852 of the proposed rule.
(3) Maintain monthly records of solvent loss, HAP content of solvent received and quantity of oilseed type processed per Sec. 63.2862(c) of the proposed rule.
(4) Comply with the standards for HAP losses as required in Sec. 63.2840 of the proposed rule.
(5) Submit the necessary notifications per Sec. 63.2860 of the proposed rule.
(6) Submit the necessary reports per Sec. 63.2861 of the proposed rule.
IX. What Are the Recordkeeping Requirements?

A. What Is a Plan for Demonstrating Compliance?

Most vegetable oil production sources currently use reliable methods to measure the solvent loss and the quantity of oilseed processed. Therefore, today's proposed rule does not require you to change the method of measurement, but does require you to document each method of measurement and to consistently follow each documented method. You must develop a plan for demonstrating compliance which describes in detail how you will determine your solvent loss, HAP content of solvent received, and the quantity of each oilseed type processed. The plan for demonstrating compliance must be developed by the compliance date and must be kept on site and available for inspection as described in Secs. 63.2851 and 63.2862(b) of the proposed rule.

B. What Is a Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan?

In accordance with the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)), you must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plan that describes the exact procedures you will follow during each type of SSM to minimize HAP emissions. The SSM plan must be developed by the compliance date and must be kept on site and available for inspection as described in Secs. 63.2852 and 63.2862(b) of the proposed rule. The SSM plan must be implemented during a malfunction period or an initial startup period as described in Sec. 62.2850 of the proposed rule.

C. What Data Must I Record?

You must record all of the data necessary to determine your compliance ratio as described in Sec. 63.2862 of the proposed rule. This includes all receipts and inventory records used to determine the monthly solvent loss, the HAP content of each shipment of solvent received, and the monthly quantity of oilseed processed. You must record the starting and ending dates of each malfunction period and initial startup period, and the activities during such periods to demonstrate that the procedures in the SSM plan were followed during each such period.

As described in Sec. 63.2863 of the proposed rule, your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for review. You must also keep each record for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record. Records must remain on site for at least 2 years and then can be maintained offsite for the remaining 3 years.
X. What Are the Reporting Requirements?

A. What Notifications Must I Submit?

If you are an existing source, you must submit an ``initial notification'' within 120 days after promulgation of the rule stating whether you are a major or an area source of HAP and other information listed under Sec. 63.2860 of the proposed rule. This initial submission notifies the Administrator that you have an affected major source and must comply with the rule as promulgated. These NESHAP does not apply to area sources. If you are a new or reconstructed source, you must make several notifications during the process of construction and startup according to Sec. 63.9 of the General Provisions.

You must also submit a notification of compliance status no later than 60 days after your initial compliance determination. For existing sources, you would normally submit this notification 50 calendar months after promulgation of the rule (3 years for compliance, 1 year or 12 operating months to record data, and 2 calendar months to complete the report). For a new or reconstructed source, you normally submit this notification 20 calendar months after initial startup (6 calendar months for an initial startup period, 12 operating months to record data, and 2 calendar months to complete the report). The notification of compliance status identifies the source, lists the oilseed types processed, and certifies that you are in compliance.

B. What Reports Must I Submit?

According to Sec. 63.2861 of the proposed rule, you are required to submit an annual report certifying that your source is in compliance. The first annual compliance certification is due 1 year, 12 calendar months, after the notification of compliance status.

If your compliance ratio exceeds one, you must submit a deviation notification report by the end of the month following the calendar month in which you determined the deviation.

If you have a malfunction period or an initial startup period, as described in Sec. 63.2850 of the proposed rule, you must submit a periodic SSM report. If you followed the procedures in the SSM plan, the periodic SSM report is due by the end of the following month and certifies that the SSM plan was followed. You must also include in the report a description of the initial startup or malfunction event and an estimate of the solvent loss during the initial startup or malfunction period, as described in Sec. 63.2861(c) of the proposed rule. If you did not follow the procedures in the SSM plan, you must notify the responsible agency within 2 days of the occurrence and submit an immediate SSM report within 7 days as described in Sec. 63.2861(d) of the proposed rule.
XI. What Are the Environmental, Energy, Cost and Economic Impacts?

We do not expect any significant secondary air emission, wastewater, solid waste, or energy impacts resulting from the proposed rule. The emissions reduction techniques that will be used to comply with the NESHAP are pollution prevention technologies designed to recover and recycle solvent. More details on the environmental and energy impacts can be found in the memorandum entitled ``Summary of Environmental and Energy Impacts'' (Docket No. A9759).

As shown in Table 1 of this preamble, the overall cost effectiveness associated with the MACT floor level of control is $1,800 per ton of HAP. This level of control will reduce HAP emissions from existing sources by approximately 6,800 tpy, a reduction of approximately 25 percent.

Also shown in Table 1 of this preamble, we considered an option [[Page 34256]]
more stringent than the MACT floor which requires installation of a fabric filter and catalytic incinerator. This option nearly doubles the reduction of HAP emissions achieved by the MACT floor. However, the cost effectiveness of the option above the MACT floor is approximately $13,800 per ton of HAP reduced. The cost effectiveness associated with the abovethefloor control option could be higher after considering sitespecific conditions which may result in additional design, operating, and safety requirements that were not included in the model costs listed in Table 1 of this preamble. Because of the significantly higher cost per ton of emission reductions, we did not require control more stringent than the MACT floor. More details on the MACT floor and abovethefloor cost analysis can be found in the memorandum entitled ``Summary of Emission Reductions and Control Costs Associated with Achieving the MACT Floor and a Control Option Above the MACT Floor'' (Docket No. A9759).
Table 1.Summary of National Impacts for the Floor and AbovetheFloor Control Scenarios Emission reductions Annual Cost effectiveness (tons/yr) Overall Total monitoring, Total ($/ton) emission capital recordkeeping, annual Control option reduction investment and reporting cost VOC HAP (percent) (million $) cost (million (million $/ VOC HAP $/yr) yr) MACT floor........................................ 10,600 6,800 25 29.7 4.4 12.4 1,200 1,800 Above MACT floor total ^a.......................... 20,900 13,400 49 134.7 6.6 185.0 8,900 13,800 ^a The above the MACT floor control option includes the installation of a fabric filter and a catalytic incinerator to control the HAP in the exhaust from the meal dryer and cooler vents. The above the MACT floor total is the cumulative of impacts and costs associated with the MACT floor and the additional controls. The costs associated with the above the MACT floor control option could be higher than the costs listed in Table 1 of this preamble. Sitespecific conditions at each source may result in additional design, operating, and safety requirements that were not included in the above model costs.

The economic impacts of the proposed rule for the vegetable oil industry are measured primarily in terms of market impacts. Market impacts include estimates of changes in market price, market production, industry annual revenues, and possible facility closures that may result from the proposed rule. Other secondary market impacts analyzed include potential labor market and international trade impacts.

The proposed rule will potentially impose emission control costs on facilities that use solvent extraction processes to extract oil from oilseeds. Oilseed processors using mechanical extraction will not incur emission control costs as a result of the proposed rule. In 1995, 31 companies operated 106 solvent extraction for vegetable oil production processing facilities in the United States. These companies process soybean, corn, cottonseed, and other seeds into oil, meal, and other products. The other oilseeds include flaxseed, peanut, rapeseed, safflower, and sunflower.

Emission control costs were estimated for each facility expected to be affected by the proposed rule. Two regulatory alternatives were analyzed; the MACT floor and a more stringent abovethefloor alternative. The capital costs for the proposed rule, the MACT floor, are estimated to be approximately $29.7 million, while national annualized costs of $12.4 million are anticipated. By comparison, the capital and annual cost estimates for the abovethefloor alternative are $134.7 million and $185.0 million, respectively. All costs are stated in 1995 dollars. The annualized cost estimates include: (1) The costs of monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping; (2) annualized lost production costs; (3) operation and maintenance costs for the emission control equipment, less the cost savings from reduced solvent purchases; and (4) the annualized capital recovery for total capital emission control investment.

Since capital costs relate to emission control equipment that will be utilized over a period of years, this cost is annualized or apportioned to each year of the anticipated equipment life. The annual capital costs include annual depreciation of equipment plus the cost of capital associated with financing the capital equipment over its useful life. In addition, lost production costs are foregone profits and other costs incurred when the plant shuts down to install new capital equipment. These costs are a one time expense of the proposed rule and are annualized over the same period as the capital equipment. A 7 percent discount rate or cost of capital is assumed for this proposed rule. The annualized capital and lost production costs are combined with annual operating and maintenance costs (less solvent recovery credits) and recordkeeping, monitoring, and reporting costs to compute the total annualized costs to comply with the proposed rule.

A financial ratio analysis estimating the ratio of emission control costs to annual sales revenues (CSR) was conducted to determine the financial impact of the proposed rule for facilities anticipated to incur emission control costs. Annual facility revenues were estimated by multiplying the average 1995 market price reported by the United States Department of Agriculture by annual production levels for each facility. The individual facility financial impacts are expected to be minimal for the proposed regulatory alternative of the MACT floor. Of the 106 facilities affected by the proposed rule, 105 are predicted to have a facility CSR between 0 and 1 percent, and one facility has a CSR between 1 and 2 percent. For the abovethefloor alternative, 21 facilities have a CSR between 0 and 1 percent, 39 have a CSR between 1 and 2 percent, and 46 have a CSR between 2 and 3 percent.

A marketbased approach was also used to evaluate the economic impacts of the proposed rule to producers and consumers of vegetable oil and meal products. This approach assumes that producers have choices when confronted with emission control costs. Producers must make a decision of whether to continue producing these products and, if so, the optimal level of production. The vegetable oil markets are assumed to be perfectly competitive.

In general, the economic impacts of this proposed rule are expected to be minimal with predicted price increases ranging from 0.14 percent to 0.47 percent for individual products. Estimated domestic production decreases resulting from the proposed rule range from 0.12 percent to 0.34 percent for all oil and meal products.
[[Page 34257]]
Revenues for the industry or the value of domestic shipments are expected to increase 0.10 percent. This increase in industry revenues results because the price elasticity of demand for vegetable oil and meal products is inelastic. For products with inelastic demand, a price increase leads to increases in revenues for the affected industry. Individual facilities within the industry may experience revenue increases or decreases, depending on their costs of production, but on average the industry revenues are anticipated to increase slightly with the proposed rule. No facilities are expected to close as a result of the proposed rule. Labor market impacts and international trade impacts are anticipated to be minimal also. More detailed information concerning the economic impacts of the proposed solvent extraction for vegetable oil production NESHAP can be found in the report entitled ``Economic Analysis of Air Pollution Regulations: Vegetable Oil Industry'' (Docket No. A9759).
XII. What Are the Administrative Requirements for This Rule? A. Executive Order 12866, Significant Regulatory Action

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed rule. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed rule.

If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to provide to the OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their concerns and EPA's position supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification from its Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner.

This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This is because the proposed rule applies to affected sources in the vegetable oil production industry, not to States or local governments. Nor will State law be preempted, or any mandates be imposed on States or local governments. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule. The EPA notes, however, that although not required to do so by this Executive Order (or otherwise) it did consult with State governments during development of this proposed rule.
C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''

Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. No known vegetable oil production facility is located within the jurisdiction of any tribal government. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective [[Page 34258]]
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This rule is not ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866. Further, EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it establishes an environmental standard based on available technology rather than reduction of health risk. No children's risk analysis was performed because no alternative technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at a reasonable cost. Furthermore, this rule has been determined not to be ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 1044, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the leastcostly, most costeffective, or leastburdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to adopt an alternative other than the leastcostly, most costeffective, or leastburdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

The EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost of this proposed rule for any 1 year has been estimated to be less than $15 million. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), As Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed solvent extraction for vegetable oil production NESHAP will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small notforprofit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For this regulation, the impacted small entities are businesses, and the Small Business Administration (SBA) defines the criteria used to designate a business as small. The relevant small business criteria are shown below.
Table 2.Affected Industry Classification Codes and Small Business Criteria for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP Small business SIC NAICS criteria (by SIC) 2046Wet Corn Milling.......... 311221Wet Corn Fewer than 750 Milling. employees. 2041Flour and Other Grain Mill 311221Wet Corn Fewer than 500 Products. Milling. employees. 2074Cottonseed Oil Mills...... 311223Other Fewer than 500 Oilseed employees. Processing.
2075Soybean Oil Mills......... 311222Soybean Fewer than 500 Processing. employees. 2076Vegetable Oil Mills....... 311223Other Fewer than 1,000 Oilseed employees. Processing.

Based upon these criteria, thirteen companies operating oilseed processing facilities are small businesses. These small businesses operated 16 vegetable oil processing facilities or 15 percent of the solvent extraction facilities in operation during 1995. Twelve of these 17 facilities were cottonseed processing mills indicating that 50 percent of the 25 cottonseed processing facilities operating in 1995 were operated by small businesses.

The EPA analyzed the potential impact of the proposed rule on these small entities. The EPA calculated the ratio of estimated annualized emission control costs relative to baseline 1995 sales revenue for each small company expected to be impacted by the proposed rule. While the CSR has different significance for different market situations, it is a good rough gauge of potential impact. If costs for the individual firm (or group of firms) are completely passed on to the purchasers of the good(s) being produced, the ratio is an estimate of the price increase (in percentage form after multiplying the ratio by 100). If costs are completely absorbed by the producer, this ratio is an estimate of the decrease in pretax profits (in percentage form after multiplying the ratio by 100). The distribution of cost to sales ratios across the whole market, the competitiveness of the market, and profit to sales ratios are among the obvious factors that may influence the significance of any particular cost to sales ratio for an individual facility. The mean or average CSR for small companies affected by the proposed rule is 0.29 percent, with
[[Page 34259]]
range of CSR from a low of 0.04 percent to a high estimate of 0.86 percent. As a result of the increased costs of emission controls, these firms will either likely increase the price of their products in response to a market change in price, will absorb the cost increase with no price increase, or will respond with a combination of these responses. Since the estimated costs as a percentage of sales is relatively minimal for the affected small oilseed processing companies, it is anticipated that the proposed rule will not have a significant impact on the affected companies' profitability.

Many cottonseed processing facilities are owned by small businesses. Nine of the 25 cottonseed processing facilities have ceased operation or are currently dormant subsequent to the baseline year of 1995. These factors prompted an additional analysis to determine whether cottonseed processing facilities will experience significant economic impacts as a result of the proposed rule. For this analysis, the estimated costs of emission controls for an individual facility were compared to the estimated 1995 sales revenue for that facility to estimate facilityspecific cost to sales ratios. A CSR exceeding 1 percent was determined to be an indicator of the potential for a significant economic impact for cottonseed processing facilities. For the eight cottonseed processing facilities currently operating that are owned by small businesses, the average CSR is 0.39 percent with a high low range of 0.08 to 0.86 percent. These estimated costs as a percent of sales are less than 1 percent indicating that significant economic impacts are not likely for the cottonseed facilities owned by small businesses as a result of the proposed rule. Thus, EPA has concluded that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule will be submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 194701) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, by email at farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 2602740. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.

The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

The total 3year burden of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for this collection is estimated at 30,275 labor hours, and the annual average burden is 10,092 labor hours for the affected facilities. There are no required capital costs for the proposed solvent extraction for vegetable oil production NESHAP. This estimate includes initial notification(s), plan for demonstrating compliance, SSM plan, notification of compliance status, monthly inventory recordkeeping, monthly determination of the compliance ratio, annual compliance certifications, deviation notification reports, periodic SSM reports, and immediate SSM reports for each of the 106 existing sources and one new source per year from proposal.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources people spend to generate, maintain, keep, or disclose to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and use technology and systems to collect, validate, and verify information; process, maintain, disclose, and provide information; adjust ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train people to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; collect and review information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Publication L. No. 104113), all Federal agencies are required to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA requires Federal agencies to provide Congress, through annual reports to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted a search for EPA's Method 311 (Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph) and found no candidate voluntary consensus standards for use in identifying n hexane. This proposal references the National Emission Standards for Closed Vent Systems, Control Devices, Recovery Devices, and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a Process (Subpart SS). Since there are no new technical standard requirements resulting from specifying Subpart SS in this rule, and no candidate consensus standards were identified for EPA Method 311 (nhexane) in this proposal, EPA is not proposing/adopting any voluntary consensus standards in this rulemaking.

EPA takes comment on proposed compliance demonstration requirements proposed in this rulemaking and specifically invites the public to identify potentiallyapplicable voluntary consensus standards. Commentors should also explain why this regulation should adopt these VCS's in lieu of EPA's standards. Emission test methods and performance specifications submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the recommendation, including method validation data and the procedure used to validate the candidate method (if method other than Method 301, 40 CFR Part 63, Appendix A was used).

Section 63.2854(b)(1) of the proposed standard lists EPA Method 311. EPA Method 311 has been used by States and industry for approximately five years. Nevertheless, under Sec. 63.7(f) of Subpart A of this part, the proposal allows any State or source to apply to EPA for permission to use an alternative method in lieu of EPA Method 311 listed in Sec. 63.2854(b)(1).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
[[Page 34260]]
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 12, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63, of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 63[AMENDED]

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

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

2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart GGGG to read as follows: Subpart GGGGNational Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Sec.
What This Subpart Covers
63.2830 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.2831 Where can I find definitions of key words used in this subpart?
63.2832 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.2833 Is my source categorized as existing or new?
63.2834 When do I have to comply with the standards in this subpart?
Standards
63.2840 What emission requirements must I meet?
Compliance Requirements
63.2850 How do I comply with the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emission standards?
63.2851 What is a plan for demonstrating compliance?
63.2852 What is a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan? 63.2853 How do I determine the actual solvent loss?
63.2854 How do I determine the weighted average volume fraction of HAP in the actual solvent loss?
63.2855 How do I determine the quantity of oilseed processed? Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.2860 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.2861 What reports must I submit and when?
63.2862 What records must I keep?
63.2863 In what form and how long must I keep my records? Other Requirements and Information
63.2870 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? 63.2871 Who administers this subpart?
63.2872 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Subpart GGGGNational Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production What This Subpart Covers

Sec. 63.2830 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) emitted during vegetable oil production. These standards limit HAP emissions from specified vegetable oil production processes. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission standards. Sec. 63.2831 Where can I find definitions of key words used in this subpart?

You can find definitions of key words used in this subpart in the sources listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section: (a) The Clean Air Act, section 112(a).
(b) The NESHAP General Provisions in Sec. 63.2.
(c) In Sec. 63.2872 of this subpart.
Sec. 63.2832 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are an affected source subject to this subpart if you meet all of the criteria listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section:
(1) You own or operate a vegetable oil production process that is a major source of HAP emissions or is collocated within a plant site with other sources that are individually or collectively a major source of HAP emissions.
(i) A vegetable oil production process is defined in Sec. 63.2872. In general, it is the collection of continuous process equipment and activities that produce crude vegetable oil and meal products by removing oil from oilseeds listed in Table 1 in Sec. 63.2840 through direct contact with an organic solvent, such as a hexane isomer blend. (ii) A major source of HAP is a plant site that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons (9.07 megagrams) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons (22.68 megagrams) or more per year.
(2) Your vegetable oil production process processes any combination of eight types of oilseeds listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (viii) of this section:
(i) Corn germ;
(ii) Cottonseed;
(iii) Flax;
(iv) Peanut;
(v) Rapeseed (for example, canola);
(vi) Safflower;
(vii) Soybean; and
(viii) Sunflower.
(b) You are not subject to this subpart if your vegetable oil production process meets any of the criteria listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section:
(1) It uses only mechanical extraction techniques that use no organic solvent to remove oil from a listed oilseed.
(2) It uses only batch solvent extraction and batch desolventizing equipment.
(3) It processes only agricultural products that are not listed oilseeds as defined in Sec. 63.2872.
Sec. 63.2833 Is my source categorized as existing or new?
(a) This subpart applies to each existing and new affected source. You must categorize your vegetable oil production process as either an existing or new source in accordance with the criteria in Table 1 of this section, as follows:
Table 1 of Sec. 63.2833.Categorizing Your Source as Existing or New Then your affected If your affected source . . . And if . . . source . . . 1. Was constructed or began reconstruction has is an existing construction before May 26, not occurred. source. 2000.
2. Began reconstruction, as reconstruction was remains an defined in Sec. 63.2, on or part of a existing source. after May 26, 2000. scheduled plan to
comply with the
existing source
requirements of
this subpart and
reconstruction
was completed no
later than 3
years after the
effective date of
this subpart.
3. Began a significant the modification remains an modification, as defined in does not existing source. Sec. 63.2872, at any time on constitute
an existing source. reconstruction.
[[Page 34261]]
4. Began a significant the modification remains a new modification, as defined in does not source. Sec. 63.2872, at any time on a constitute
new source. reconstruction.
5. Began reconstruction on or reconstruction was is a new source. after May 26, 2000. completed later
than 3 years
after the
effective date of
this subpart.
6. Began construction on or .................. is a new source. after May 26, 2000.
(b) Reconstruction of a source. Any affected source is reconstructed if components are replaced so that the criteria in the definition of reconstruction in Sec. 63.2 are satisfied. In general, a vegetable oil production process is reconstructed if the fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost for constructing a new vegetable oil production process, and it is technically and economically feasible for the reconstructed source to meet the relevant new source standard established in this subpart. The effect of reconstruction on the categorization of your existing and new affected source is described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section:
(1) After reconstruction of an existing source, the affected source is recategorized as a new source and becomes subject to the new source requirements of this subpart.
(2) After reconstruction of a new source, the affected source remains categorized as a new source and remains subject to the new source requirements of this subpart.
(c) Significant modification of a source. A significant modification to an affected source is a term specific to this subpart and is defined in Sec. 63.2872.
(1) In general, a significant modification to your source consists of adding new equipment or the modification of existing equipment within the affected source that significantly affects solvent losses from the affected source. Examples include adding or replacing extractors, desolventizertoasters (conventional and specialty), and meal dryercoolers. All other significant modifications must meet the criteria listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (1) (ii) of this section: (i) The fixed capital cost of the modification represents a significant percentage of the fixed capital cost of building a comparable new vegetable oil production process.
(ii) It does not constitute reconstruction as defined in Sec. 63.2. (2) A significant modification has no effect on the categorization of your source as existing and new. An existing source remains categorized as an existing source and subject to the existing source requirements of this subpart. A new source remains categorized as a new source and subject to the new source requirements of this subpart. (d) Changes in the type of oilseed processed by your affected source does not affect the categorization of your source as new or existing. Recategorizing an affected source from existing to new occurs only when you add or modify process equipment within the source which meets the definition of reconstruction.
Sec. 63.2834 When do I have to comply with the standards in this subpart?

You must comply with the standards in accordance with one of the schedules in Table 1 of this section, as follows:
Table 1 of Sec. 63.2834.Compliance Dates for Existing and New Sources
If your affected source is Then your compliance

categorized as . . . And if . . . date is . . . 1. An existing source....... .................... 3 years after [the effective date of this subpart]. 2. A new source............. you startup your [the effective date affected source of this subpart].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Mr. James F. Durham, Waste & Chemical Processes Group, Emission Standards Division, (MD13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 5415672; facsimile number (919) 541 0246; electronic mail address ``durham.jim@epa.gov.''