[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 221 (Friday, November 19, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66096-66129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24204]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505, EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532; FRL-7523-03-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU66


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Carbon 
Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Residual Risk and 
Technology Reviews, and Carbon Black Production Area Source Technology 
Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology reviews 
(RTR) conducted for the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing major source categories, and the technology review 
conducted for Carbon Black Production area sources, regulated under 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). In 
addition, we are taking final action to add new emissions standards for 
the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing major 
source categories to address hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions 
not previously covered by these NESHAP. The EPA is also finalizing 
amendments for both source categories that address the startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) provisions of the existing standards, 
and require electronic reporting of certain notifications, performance 
test results, and semiannual reports.

DATES: These final rules are effective on November 19, 2021. The 
incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the 
final rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
November 19, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 
established a docket for the Carbon Black Production source category 
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505, and a docket for the Cyanide 
Chemicals Manufacturing source category under Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-
2020-0532. 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 or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically through 
https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, 
WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. 
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and 
the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. Hand 
Deliveries and couriers may be received by scheduled appointment only. 
For further information and updates on EPA Docket Center services and 
the current status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the Carbon Black 
Production source category final action, contact Korbin Smith, Sector 
Policies and Programs Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2416; 
fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address: [email protected]. 
For questions about the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category 
final action, contact Nathan Topham, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division (D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0483; fax number: (919) 541-4991; 
and email address: [email protected].
    For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology 
for both Carbon Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing, 
contact James Hirtz, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-
02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-0881; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email 
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and 
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease 
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA 
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

CAA Clean Air Act
CCD combustion control device
CCMPU cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO carbon monoxide
CRA Congressional Review Act
EAV equivalent annual value
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GMACT Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCN hydrogen cyanide
HON Hazardous Organic NESHAP
HQ hazard quotient
ICBA International Carbon Black Association
ICR Information Collection Request
LEL lower explosive limit
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MUF main unit filter
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NOCS Notification of Compliance Status
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PEL permissible exposure limit
ppm parts per million
ppmv parts per million by volume
ppmw parts per million by weight
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PV present value
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
SSP startup and shutdown plan
STEL short term exposure limit
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year

    Background information. On January 14, 2021, the EPA proposed 
revisions to the Carbon Black Production NESHAP based on our RTR, and 
proposed no revisions to the Carbon Black Production area source rule 
based on our technology review. On January 15, 2021, the EPA proposed 
revisions to the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP based on our 
RTR. In this action, we are finalizing decisions for, and revisions of, 
the NESHAP for these source categories. We summarize some of the more 
significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed rules 
and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other 
public comments on these proposals and the EPA's responses to those 
comments are available in the Summary of Comments and EPA's Responses 
on the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

[[Page 66097]]

Pollutants Carbon Black Production Residual Risk and Technology Review 
and Carbon Black Production Area Sources Technology Review Proposed 
Rule (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505) for the Carbon Black 
Production source category, and Summary of Comments and EPA's Responses 
on the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review 
Proposed Rule (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532) for the Cyanide 
Chemicals Manufacturing source category. ``Track changes'' versions of 
the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action 
are available in the dockets.
    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 are the source categories and how do the current NESHAP 
regulate HAP emissions from the source categories?
    C. What changes did we propose for the Carbon Black Production 
source category in our January 14, 2021, RTR proposal?
    D. What changes did we propose for the Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing source category in our January 15, 2021, RTR proposal?
III. What is included in these final rules?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk reviews 
for the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing 
source categories?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
reviews for the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing source categories?
    C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections 
112(d)(2) and (3) for the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide 
Chemicals Manufacturing source categories?
    D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions 
during periods of SSM for the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide 
Chemicals Manufacturing source categories?
    E. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Carbon Black Production source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the Carbon Black Production Source 
Category
    B. Technology Review for the Carbon Black Production Source 
Category
    C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to 112(d)(2) and 
(3) for the Carbon Black Production source category?
    D. Amendments Addressing Emissions During Periods of SSM for the 
Carbon Black Production Source Category
    E. Other Technical Amendments to the Carbon Black Production 
NESHAP
V. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing 
Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing 
Source Category
    C. Amendments Addressing Emissions During Periods of SSM for the 
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Source Category
    D. Other Technical Amendments to the Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing NESHAP
VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. Carbon Black Production
    B. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. The source categories that are the subject of 
this final action are cyanide chemicals manufacturing and carbon black 
production major sources regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY and 
carbon black production area sources regulated under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart MMMMMM. The North American Industry Classification System 
(NAICS) codes for the cyanide chemicals manufacturing industry are 
325188 and 325199. The NAICS code for the carbon black production 
industry is 325182.
    This list of categories and NAICS codes 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 
categories 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 
these 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 dockets for these source 
categories, 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/acetal-resins-acrylic-modacrylic-fibers-carbon-black-hydrogen. Following publication in the 
Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the 
final rule and key technical documents at this same website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an 
overview of the RTR program, links to project websites for the RTR 
source categories, and detailed emissions and other data we used as 
inputs to the risk assessments.

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 January 18, 2022. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 
requirements established by these final rules 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

[[Page 66098]]

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 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). The EPA is required to 
address regulatory gaps, such as missing standards for listed air 
toxics known to be emitted from the source category. Louisiana 
Environmental Action Network (LEAN) v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 
2020). 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 action, see 86 FR 3054, 
for the Carbon Black Production NESHAP and 86 FR 3906, for the Cyanide 
Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA 
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. 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 are the source categories and how do the current NESHAP 
regulate HAP emissions from the source categories?

    The MACT standards for both the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide 
Chemicals Manufacturing source categories are contained in the Generic 
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (GMACT) NESHAP, which also 
includes MACT standards for several other source categories. Section 
II.B.1 of this preamble discusses the current Carbon Black Production 
major and area source rules and section II.B.2 discusses the Cyanide 
Chemicals Manufacturing source category standards.
1. Carbon Black Production
    The EPA promulgated the Carbon Black Production NESHAP for major 
sources on July 12, 2002 (67 FR 46258). The major source standards are 
codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY. Additionally, the Carbon Black 
Production area source NESHAP was promulgated on July 16, 2007 (72 FR 
38864). The area source standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart MMMMMM. Subpart MMMMMM was subsequently amended by a direct 
final rule on March 26, 2008 (73 FR 15923). As promulgated, the Carbon 
Black Production major source and area source NESHAP apply to carbon 
black production facilities that are, respectively, major sources and 
area sources of HAP. The affected source covered by the major and area 
source subparts is each new, reconstructed, or existing facility that 
produces carbon black by either the furnace, thermal, acetylene 
decomposition, or lampblack processes. The source category covered by 
this MACT standard currently includes 15 major source facilities; no 
area source facilities were identified.
    Emissions limits in the 2002 major source NESHAP for the Carbon 
Black Production source category were set for process vents associated 
with the main unit filter (MUF). Process vents at the MUF that have a 
HAP concentration of equal to or greater than 260 parts per million by 
volume (ppmv) are required to reduce emissions of HAP by the use of a 
flare meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, or reduce 
emissions of total HAP by 98 weight-

[[Page 66099]]

percent or to a concentration of 20 ppmv, whichever is less stringent. 
The Carbon Black Production area source NESHAP requires area source 
facilities to meet the requirements of the Carbon Black Production 
major source NESHAP found at 40 CFR 63.1103(f) of subpart YY.
2. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
    The EPA promulgated the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP on 
July 12, 2002 (67 FR 46258). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 
63, subpart YY. The cyanide chemicals manufacturing industry consists 
of facilities producing hydrogen cyanide or sodium cyanide. The source 
category covered by this MACT standard currently includes 13 
facilities. As promulgated in 2002, the cyanide chemicals manufacturing 
standards regulate HAP emissions from cyanide chemicals manufacturing 
units located at major sources. The HAP emitted from the source 
category include cyanide compounds (hydrogen cyanide and sodium 
cyanide), acetonitrile, and acrylonitrile.
    The NESHAP defines the affected source as each cyanide chemicals 
manufacturing process unit (CCMPU). The rule states that the CCMPU is 
the equipment assembled and connected by hard-piping or duct work to 
process raw materials to manufacture, store, and transport a cyanide 
chemicals product. Section II.B of the proposed cyanide chemicals 
manufacturing RTR provides more information about the source category 
(86 FR 3906, 3910).
    The 2002 NESHAP established emissions standards for process vents, 
storage vessels, transfer racks, equipment leaks, and some wastewater 
sources. Cyanide process vents are subject to either a 98 weight-
percent reduction of total HAP \2\ performance standard or a 20 ppmv 
total HAP outlet exit concentration limit. For storage vessels in the 
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category, sources may either 
choose to comply with a 98 weight-percent reduction of hydrogen cyanide 
performance standard, a 20 ppmv hydrogen cyanide exit outlet 
concentration limit, or equipment standards (e.g., use of a flare). 
Transfer racks are subject to either equipment standards or the same 
performance standard or concentration limit \3\ as cyanide process 
vents. Equipment leaks are subject to work practice standards required 
by either 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT or subpart UU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Dry end'' process vents at sodium cyanide units must meet 
a 98 percent reduction performance standard for emissions of sodium 
cyanide since this is the form of cyanide compounds emitted from 
these emission points. The HAP emitted from other process vents that 
make up the ``total HAP'' emitted from these sources are hydrogen 
cyanide, acetonitrile, and acrylonitrile.
    \3\ Transfer racks emissions limits are expressed in terms of 
hydrogen cyanide as this is the only HAP emitted from these sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During development of the initial MACT standards, we identified 
process wastewater at existing sources as a potential source of 
emissions of hydrogen cyanide, acetonitrile, and acrylonitrile. See 65 
FR 76408, 76411, and 76413, December 6, 2000, for a discussion of the 
HAP emitted from cyanide chemicals manufacturing. The 2002 NESHAP 
established requirements that HAP emissions from applicable process 
wastewater streams be controlled while the wastewater is being conveyed 
to treatment and specified requirements for the controls to reduce the 
hydrogen cyanide and acetonitrile concentration in the process 
wastewater. For a new CCMPU that generates process wastewater, the 
NESHAP requires a combined 93 weight-percent removal and control of HAP 
from process wastewater generated from hydrogen cyanide purification, 
ammonia purification, or flare blowdown. At the time the initial MACT 
standards were developed, we identified measures undertaken at cyanide 
chemicals manufacturing facilities to comply with other NESHAP as the 
``MACT floor'' for process wastewater at existing sources, but we did 
not include these measures in subpart YY for existing CCMPUs. For a 
cyanide chemicals manufacturing process unit that generates maintenance 
wastewater, the NESHAP requires that an owner or operator comply with 
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) maintenance wastewater requirements.

C. What changes did we propose for the Carbon Black Production source 
category in our January 14, 2021, RTR proposal?

    On January 14, 2021, the EPA published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register for the Carbon Black Production NESHAP, 40 CFR part 
63, subpart YY, that took into consideration the RTR analyses. In the 
proposed rule, we proposed to find that the risk from the source 
category is acceptable, the current standards provide an ample margin 
of safety to protect public health, and more stringent standards are 
not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Based on the 
technology review, we proposed that it is not necessary to revise the 
existing standards because we did not identify developments in 
practices, processes, or control technologies that would result in 
cost-effective emission reductions for the Carbon Black Production 
source category.
    The EPA did, however, propose to broaden the scope of the original 
NESHAP, which applied to process vents associated with the MUF only, to 
include previously unregulated process vents associated with the carbon 
black production unit. The EPA proposed to require all process vents 
that have a HAP concentration of the emission stream equal to or 
greater than 260 ppmv, including those located after the MUF, to reduce 
emissions of HAP by using a flare meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart SS, or to reduce emissions of total HAP by 98 weight-
percent or to a concentration of 20 ppmv, whichever is less stringent. 
The EPA also proposed to require facilities to conduct performance 
testing on the additional process vents located after the MUF.
    The proposal preamble also stated that the EPA did not identify any 
currently operating area sources in the carbon black production source 
category. The EPA is not proposing to change the existing area source 
standards. However, the area source standard requires all facilities to 
meet all the requirements in 40 CFR 63.1103(f) of subpart YY (major 
source standard). The provisions in 40 CFR 63.1103(f) include carbon 
black production applicability, definitions, and requirements. 
Therefore, all changes discussed below, which impact the requirements 
laid out in 40 CFR 63.1103(f), also impact the requirements of the area 
source rule for carbon black production.
    The EPA proposed the following amendments to the Carbon Black 
Production major source NESHAP:
     Expansion of the process vent emission standards to cover 
all applicable (based on an applicability threshold) carbon black 
production process vents;
     A requirement for boilers/process heaters that receive 
tail gas for use as fuel gas to comply with annual tune-up requirements 
specified in 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(3)(iii);
     Addition of a work practice standard for periods of 
startup, as specified in 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(5);
     Revision of the MACT standard compliance provisions for 
the Carbon Black Production source category to require owners and 
operators of carbon black production process vent affected sources to 
conduct periodic performance tests every 5 years;

[[Page 66100]]

     Elimination of the startup, shutdown, malfunction (SSM) 
exemption, which currently appears at 40 CFR 63.1108, and any 
references to SSM requirements in subpart YY that apply to Carbon Black 
Production source category affected sources;
     Requirements for submission of electronic copies of 
required performance test reports, Notification of Compliance Status 
(NOCS), and periodic reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange 
(CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 
(CEDRI); and
     Minor editorial and technical changes in the subpart.

D. What changes did we propose for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing 
source category in our January 15, 2021, RTR proposal?

    On January 15, 2021, the EPA published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP (86 FR 
3906) that took into consideration the RTR analyses. In the proposed 
rule, we proposed to find that the risk from the source category is 
acceptable, the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health, and more stringent standards are not necessary 
to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Based on the technology 
review, we proposed that it is not necessary to revise the existing 
standards because we did not identify developments in practices, 
processes, or control technologies that would result in cost-effective 
emission reductions for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source 
category.
    However, the EPA proposed standards pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(2) for process wastewater from existing CCMPUs, which was 
previously unregulated.\4\ We proposed that process wastewater sources 
at existing sources comply with HON wastewater requirements. 
Specifically, for an existing cyanide chemicals manufacturing process 
unit that generates process wastewater from hydrogen cyanide 
purification, ammonia purification, or flare blowdown, we proposed that 
owners or operators comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 63.138(a)(1) 
of the HON if the total annual average concentration of Table 9 of 40 
CFR part 63, subpart G compounds and cyanide compounds \5\ is greater 
than or equal to 10,000 parts per million by weight (ppmw) at any flow 
rate, or the total annual average concentration of Table 9 compounds 
and cyanide compounds is greater than or equal to 1,000 ppmw, and the 
annual average flow rate is greater than or equal to 10 liters per 
minute (according to the procedures in 40 CFR 63.144(a)). We also 
proposed revising the new source standard to add the HON requirements 
for waste management units upstream of an open or closed biological 
treatment process to ensure demonstrable compliance measures are in 
place for these sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The EPA not only has authority under CAA sections 112(d)(2) 
and (3) to set MACT standards for previously unregulated HAP 
emissions at any time but is required to address any previously 
unregulated HAP emissions as part of its periodic review of MACT 
standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). LEAN v. EPA, 955 F3d at 1091-
1099.
    \5\ In the final rule, we have clarified that this requirement 
applies to ``free cyanide'' rather than ``cyanide compounds'' in 
response to public comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also proposed the following amendments:
     Revisions to the MACT rule at 40 CFR 63.1108 through 40 
CFR 63.1112 to eliminate references to SSM requirements in subpart YY 
to reduce confusion that may result from referenced subparts associated 
with the GMACT that may contain SSM exemptions for other source 
categories;
     Requirements for submission of electronic copies of 
required performance test reports, NOCS, and periodic reports through 
the EPA's CDX using CEDRI; and
     Minor editorial and technical changes in the subpart.

III. What is included in these final rules?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR 
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Carbon Black Production and 
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source categories.
    For the Carbon Black Production source category, this action 
finalizes changes to the major source NESHAP, including elimination of 
the SSM exemption and any reference to SSM requirements for carbon 
black production facilities, inclusion of a work practice standard for 
startup and shutdown periods, inclusion of boiler and process heater 
annual tune-up requirements, expansion of process vent standard 
applicability, addition of periodic process vent performance testing 
requirements, inclusion of electronic reporting requirements, and 
editorial and technical changes. This final action also reflects 
several changes to the RTR proposal in consideration of comments 
received during the public comment period. Section IV presents our 
rationale for our final decisions and changes to the proposed 
amendments based on comments received on the proposal.
    For the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category, this 
action finalizes changes to the NESHAP, including: Eliminating any 
reference to SSM exemptions for cyanide chemicals manufacturing 
facilities, adding electronic reporting requirements, adding HON 
requirements for process wastewater from existing cyanide chemical 
manufacturing process units, adding HON requirements for waste 
management units upstream of an open or closed biological treatment 
process to the new source standard, and making editorial/technical 
changes. This action also reflects several changes to the RTR proposal 
in consideration of comments received during the public comment period 
as described in section V of this preamble.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk reviews for the 
Carbon Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source 
categories?

    This section introduces the final determinations for the Carbon 
Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP pursuant to 
CAA section 112(f). Section III.A.1 presents the final decisions based 
on the risk review for the Carbon Black Production source category. 
Section III.A.2 presents the final decisions based on the risk review 
for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category.
1. Carbon Black Production
    The EPA is not amending the major source Carbon Black Production 
NESHAP based on the risk reviews conducted pursuant to CAA section 
112(f). In this action, we are finalizing our proposed determination 
that the risk from HAP emissions from the Carbon Black Production 
source category is acceptable, and that the standards provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse 
environmental effect.
2. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
    The EPA is not amending the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP 
based on the risk review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In 
this action, we are finalizing our proposed determination that the risk 
from HAP emissions from the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source 
category is acceptable, and that the standards provide an ample margin 
of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental 
effect.

[[Page 66101]]

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology reviews 
for the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing 
source categories?

    This section summarizes the results of the technology reviews for 
the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP. 
Section III.B.1 presents the final decisions based on the technology 
review for the Carbon Black Production source category. Section III.B.2 
presents the final decisions based on the technology review for the 
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category.
1. Carbon Black Production
    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 for this source category under CAA 
section 112(d)(6). However, as part of the technology review, we 
identified regulatory gaps (previously unregulated processes or 
pollutants), and are establishing new standards to fill those gaps as 
described in section III.C of this preamble.
    As discussed in the Carbon Black Production source category 
proposal preamble, we also performed a technology review of the Carbon 
Black Production area source NESHAP. As part of that review, the EPA 
did not identify any currently operating area source facilities. We are 
finalizing our conclusion that it is not necessary to make changes to 
the existing area source standards as a result of this review.
2. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
    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 for this source category under CAA 
section 112(d)(6). However, as part of the technology review, we 
identified regulatory gaps (previously unregulated processes or 
pollutants), and are establishing new standards to fill those gaps as 
described in section III.C of this preamble.

C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections 
112(d)(2) and (3) for the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing source categories?

    This section describes the final rule amendments to the Carbon 
Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP pursuant to 
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). Section III.C.1 presents the final rule 
amendments for the Carbon Black Production source category. Section 
III.C.2 presents the final rule amendments for the Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing source category.
1. Carbon Black Production
    Pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), the EPA is finalizing 
its proposal to broaden the scope of the current emission limits for 
new and existing sources in the major source NESHAP, which applies to 
process vents associated with the MUF, to include all process vents 
associated with the carbon black production unit. This amendment 
requires all process vents, including those located after the MUF that 
meet the applicability threshold, to reduce emissions of total HAP by 
98 weight-percent or to a concentration of 20 ppmv, whichever is less 
stringent, by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any 
combination of control devices meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 
63.982(a)(2). Additionally, these final amendments require facilities 
to conduct an applicability determination test on the additional 
process vents located after the MUF.
2. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
    Pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), the EPA is finalizing 
its proposal to add standards for process wastewater at existing CCMPUs 
with minor applicability-related clarifications (see section V.D.3.d 
(Request for Clarification)). The final standards require that 
individual wastewater streams from CCMPU HCN purification, ammonia 
purification, or flare blowdown, comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 
63.138(a)(1) of the HON if the total annual average concentration of 
Table 9 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G compounds and free cyanide from 
each process wastewater stream is greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmw 
at any flow rate, or the total annual average concentration of Table 9 
compounds and free cyanide from each process wastewater stream is 
greater than or equal to 1,000 ppmw and the annual average flow rate is 
greater than or equal to 10 liters per minute (according to the 
procedures in 40 CFR 63.144(a)). The EPA is also finalizing its 
proposal to add the HON requirements for waste management units 
upstream of an open or closed biological treatment process for process 
wastewater at new sources.

D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during 
periods of SSM for the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing source categories?

    This section describes the final rule amendments to the Carbon 
Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP that 
address emissions during periods of SSM. Section III.D.1 presents the 
final rule amendments for the Carbon Black Production source category. 
Section III.D.2 presents the final rule amendments for the Cyanide 
Chemicals Manufacturing source category.
1. Carbon Black Production
    The EPA is finalizing the proposed SSM provision amendments for the 
Carbon Black Production major source NESHAP in subpart YY in order to 
ensure consistency with the decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 
1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). As noted in the proposal for the Carbon Black 
Production source category, under this decision, the Court vacated two 
provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with 
otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during 
periods of SSM. We proposed and are finalizing revisions to the MACT 
rule at 40 CFR 63.1108 through 40 CFR 63.1112 that remove the SSM 
exemption under the Carbon Black Production NESHAP and any references 
to SSM-related requirements.
    The EPA is also finalizing startup and shutdown work practice 
standards to address safety and combustibility concerns in the absence 
of the SSM exemption. The work practice standard, as amended under the 
final rule, is discussed in greater detail in section IV.C of this 
preamble.
2. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
    The EPA is finalizing the proposed SSM provision amendments for the 
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP in order to ensure consistency 
with the decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 
2008). The Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP promulgated in 2002 
is consistent with the Court decision mentioned above. However, we 
proposed and are finalizing revisions to the NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.1108 
through 40 CFR 63.1112 to ensure that no confusion results from 
referenced subparts in subpart YY that may contain SSM exemptions for 
other source categories. See section V.C of this preamble for more 
information regarding SSM provisions under subpart YY.

[[Page 66102]]

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

    This section describes other amendments to the final Carbon Black 
Production and Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP. Section III.E.1 
presents the other final rule amendments for the Carbon Black 
Production source category. Section III.E.2 presents the other final 
rule amendments for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source 
category.
1. Carbon Black Production
    Other final amendments to the Carbon Black Production NESHAP 
include boiler and process heater annual tune-up requirements, 
electronic reporting requirements, and periodic performance testing 
requirements for process vents to demonstrate initial and continued 
compliance with the standards, as discussed below.
a. Boiler and Process Heater Annual Tune-Up Provisions
    The EPA is finalizing annual tune-up requirements for boilers and 
process heaters that utilize tail gas for use as fuel. These provisions 
are specified in 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(3)(iii) of the final rule. To better 
reflect boilers and process heaters used in the carbon black production 
source category, the final annual boiler and process heater tune-up 
requirements were revised from the proposal, based on comments received 
(see section IV.D of this preamble for detail related to comments 
received, as well as the EPA's revisions and rationale).
b. Electronic Reporting Requirements
    The EPA is finalizing its proposal that owners and operators of 
carbon black production facilities submit electronic copies of required 
performance test reports, NOCS, and periodic reports through the EPA's 
CDX using CEDRI. A description of the electronic data submission 
process is provided in the memorandum, ``Electronic Reporting 
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules'', 
available in the docket for the Carbon Black Production NESHAP (see 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505-0018).
c. Periodic Performance Testing
    The EPA is finalizing rule amendments, as proposed, that require 
owners and operators of carbon black production process vents subject 
to the rule, in addition to the already required initial performance 
test, to conduct performance tests every 5 years to demonstrate 
continued compliance with the NESHAP.
2. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
    The EPA is finalizing its proposal that owners and operators of 
cyanide chemicals manufacturing facilities submit electronic copies of 
required performance test reports, NOCS, and periodic reports through 
the EPA's CDX using CEDRI. A description of the electronic data 
submission process is provided in the memorandum, Electronic Reporting 
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, 
available in the docket for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP 
action (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532-0003). Specific comments 
received on the proposed periodic report electronic data template and 
the EPA's response to those comments are provided in a memorandum to 
the docket, Summary of Comments and EPA's Responses on the National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, 
available in the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP docket (see EPA 
HQ-OAR-2020-0532).

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

    This section describes the effective dates and compliance dates for 
the final amendments to the Carbon Black Production and Cyanide 
Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP. Section III.F.1 presents the effective 
dates and compliance dates for the Carbon Black Production NESHAP 
amendments. Section III.F.2 presents the effective dates and compliance 
dates for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP amendments.
1. Carbon Black Production
a. Effective Date of the Final Rule
    The revisions to the Carbon Black Production MACT standards being 
promulgated in this action are effective on November 19, 2021.
b. Compliance Dates
    For new sources (affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after January 14, 2021), the EPA is finalizing, as 
proposed, that affected sources must comply with all of the final rule 
requirements immediately upon the effective date of the rule, November 
19, 2021, or upon startup, whichever is later.
    The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, that existing Carbon Black 
Production affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or before January 14, 2021 (existing sources), must 
comply with the following requirements of the rule no later than 
November 20, 2022: (1) Process vent emission standards applicability 
testing for carbon black production process vents; (2) the requirement 
to conduct performance tests no more than 60 months after the preceding 
test when demonstrating compliance with process vent emission control 
requirements; and (3) boiler and process heater annual tune-up 
requirements.
    The EPA is finalizing a requirement that previously unregulated 
process vents from Carbon Black Production sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction on or before January 14, 2021, will have 
until November 19, 2024 to comply with final rule requirements for 
process vents. This represents a change from the proposal. The EPA 
determined that changing the proposed compliance period is necessary, 
in the event that the applicability test indicates that previously 
unregulated process vents are required to route emissions to an 
existing control device or to a newly constructed control device. Based 
on comments received, the EPA believes providing a 3-year compliance 
period for newly subject process vents, instead of 1 year, is necessary 
and appropriate in order to ensure sufficient time for facilities to 
conduct the necessary process design planning, purchases, construction, 
and changes to come into compliance and then perform the initial 
performance test.
    For requirements related to SSM-related amendments and electronic 
reporting, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, that all existing 
sources must be in compliance with the: (1) SSM-related amendments 
(changes proposed as a result of removing the SSM exemption from the 
requirements); (2) the alternative work practice standard specified in 
40 CFR 63.1103(f)(5) related to the requirement that a closed vent 
system route the collected vapors to a control device when 
demonstrating compliance; and (3) the addition of requirements to 
submit reports electronically by May 18, 2022. Based on our assessment 
for existing sources, 180 days is the most expeditious compliance 
period practicable for complying with SSM-related and electronic 
reporting requirements.
    The EPA considers 180 days to be sufficient for owners and 
operators of affected sources to comply with the

[[Page 66103]]

alternative work practice standard for startup and shutdown.\6\ Many of 
the work practice standard requirements included in the final rule are 
already implemented by industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Section 63.983(a)(1) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS requires 
that each closed vent system be designed and operated to collect the 
regulated material vapors from the emission point, and to route the 
collected vapors to a control device, apply at all times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our experience with similar industries that are required to convert 
reporting mechanisms, to install necessary hardware and software, 
become familiar with the process of submitting performance test results 
electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new electronic 
submission capabilities, and reliably employ electronic reporting, 
shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and, more typically, 
180 days is generally necessary to successfully accomplish these 
revisions.
    Our experience with similar industries further shows that owners 
and operators generally require a time period of 180 days to read and 
understand the amended rule requirements; to evaluate their operations 
to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup 
and shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments; 
and to update their operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan to 
reflect the revised requirements.
2. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
a. Effective Date of the Final Rule
    The revisions to the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing standards 
being promulgated in this action are effective on November 19, 2021.
b. Compliance Dates
    New sources (affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after January 15, 2021) must comply with all of the 
standards immediately upon the effective date of the standard, November 
19, 2021, or upon startup, whichever is later.
    The compliance date for existing Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing 
affected sources (affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or before January 15, 2021) to comply with the final 
process wastewater standards is November 20, 2022. The EPA determined 
that affected sources are already complying with similar or 
substantially equivalent process wastewater requirements. The EPA is 
allowing one year to comply with the final process wastewater 
requirements in order to provide owners and operators the time to 
evaluate process wastewater rule requirements and applicability to 
their operations, perform compliance calculations, and adjust plans and 
reports, as necessary.
    For requirements related to SSM-related amendments (removing 
references to SSM-related exemptions in other subparts) and electronic 
reporting, the compliance date is May 18, 2022. Based on our assessment 
for existing sources, 180 days is the most expeditious compliance 
period practicable for complying with SSM-related and electronic 
reporting requirements.
    For SSM-related amendments, our experience with similar industries 
indicates that regulated facilities generally require a time period of 
180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements; to 
evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards 
during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the rule and make 
any necessary adjustments; and to update their operations to reflect 
the revised requirements.
    For electronic reporting changes, our experience with similar 
industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms, to 
install necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the 
process of submitting performance test results electronically through 
the EPA's CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and 
reliably employ electronic reporting indicates that a time period of a 
minimum of 90 days, and, more typically, 180 days is generally 
necessary to successfully accomplish these revisions.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Carbon Black 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 available in the docket for this source category.

A. Residual Risk Review for the Carbon Black Production Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Carbon 
Black Production source category?
    On January 14, 2020 (86 FR 3056), the EPA proposed that risk posed 
by major sources in the Carbon Black Production source category is 
acceptable, that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety 
to protect public health, and that additional standards are not 
necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. The estimated 
cancer risks were below the presumptive limit of acceptability and the 
noncancer risk results indicate there is minimal likelihood of adverse 
noncancer health effects due to HAP emissions from this source 
category. The proposed decision on ample margin of safety was based on 
weighing factors relevant to this particular source category, including 
the risk posed by point sources and the costs and cost-effectiveness of 
additional controls to reduce risk further, as well as uncertainties in 
the baseline emissions estimates used in estimating risk, the costs and 
effectiveness of the work practices we considered to reduce these 
emissions, and the amount of risk reduction that could be achieved with 
the work practices. 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 maximum individual risk (MIR) of approximately 1-
in-10 thousand.'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). In the proposal, 
the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable emissions from 
carbon black production sources, and we considered these in determining 
acceptability. A more thorough discussion of the risk assessment is 
included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Carbon Black 
Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 
2021 Final Rule document, available in the docket for this final rule 
(Docket-EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505).
    In the proposed rule, as presented in Table 1 below, based on 
modeling actual emissions from the Carbon Black Production source 
category for all 15 facilities, we estimated inhalation cancer risk to 
the individual most exposed was less than 1-in-1 million. The estimated 
incidence of cancer due to inhalation exposures resulting from 
emissions from the source category was 0.00004 excess cancer cases per 
year, or one excess case every 25,000 years with no-one exposed to an 
excess cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million due to 
inhalation exposure to HAP emissions from this source category. The 
Agency estimated that the maximum chronic noncancer target

[[Page 66104]]

organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) from inhalation exposure from this 
source category was 0.06. In the screening assessment of worst-case 
acute inhalation impacts, we estimated a maximum hazard quotient (HQ) 
of 0.09 (due to hydrogen cyanide) based on the reference exposure level 
(REL). As shown in Table 1, the chronic cancer and non-cancer risks are 
the same for allowable and facility-wide emissions as they are for 
actuals.

                               Table 1--Inhalation Risk Assessment Summary for Carbon Black Production \1\ Source Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum        Estimated       Estimated       Estimated
                                         individual     population at   population at   annual cancer                                  Maximum screening
   Risk assessment        Number of    cancer risk (1- increased risk  increased risk     incidence       Maximum chronic noncancer     acute noncancer
                       facilities \2\  in-1  million)  of cancer >=1-  of cancer >=10-   (cases per               TOSHI \4\                  HQ \5\
                                             \3\        in-1 million    in-1  million       year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Baseline Actual Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category......              15            0.06               0               0         0.00004  <1 (neurological).............  0.09 (REL)
Facility-wide........              15            0.06               0               0         0.00004  <1 (neurological).............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Baseline Allowable Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category......              15            0.06               0               0         0.00004  <1 (neurological).............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on actual and allowable emissions.
\2\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk assessment. Includes 15 operating facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY.
\3\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\4\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Carbon Black Production source category is the neurological system.
\5\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. The acute
  HQ shown was based upon the lowest acute 1-hour dose-response value, the REL for hydrogen cyanide. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the
  next lowest available acute dose-response value.

    We also conducted a multipathway screening assessment for the 
source category, and the results of the screening assessment are 
presented in the risk report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Carbon Black Production Source Category in Support of the 2021 Risk and 
Technology Review Final Rule, and section IV of the proposal preamble 
(86 FR 3054), January 14, 2021) available in the docket for this 
action.
    A screening value is not an estimate of the cancer risk or a 
noncancer HQ (or HI). Rather, a screening value represents a high-end 
estimate of what the risk or HQ may be. For the Carbon Black Production 
source category, the highest cancer screening value was from arsenic 
emissions, with a Tier 2 cancer screening value of 9, and the highest 
non-cancer screening value was from mercury emissions, with a Tier 3 
non-cancer screening value of 2. We are confident that if a refined 
multipathway risk assessment was conducted, the HQ for mercury would be 
lower than 2. Further details on the Tier 3 screening assessment can be 
found in Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Carbon 
Black Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology 
Review 2021 Final Rule. Arsenic emissions resulted in a Tier 2 cancer 
screening value of 9, which means that we are confident that the 
multipathway cancer risk is lower than 9-in-1 million. The EPA has 
determined that it is not necessary to go beyond the Tier 3 assessment 
for mercury (to a site-specific assessment) or beyond the Tier 2 cancer 
screening assessment. As explained above, the mercury screening value 
of 2 is a high-end estimate of what the risk or hazard may be and can 
be interpreted to mean that we are confident that the HQ would be lower 
than 2. Similarly, we are confident that the excess cancer risk is less 
than 9-in-1 million, and evaluation under Tier 3 or a site-specific 
assessment would further reduce the estimated risk. Further, risk 
results from five site-specific mercury assessments the EPA has 
conducted for five RTR source categories resulted in noncancer HQs that 
range from 50 times to 800 times lower than the respective Tier 2 
mercury screening value for those facilities (refer to the identified 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015 for a copy of these reports).\7\ 
Based on our review of these analyses, we expect if we were to perform 
a site-specific assessment for the Carbon Black Production source 
category, the mercury HQ would be at least a one order of magnitude 
less than the modeled Tier 3 non-cancer screening value of 2 for 
mercury. Thus, the EPA is confident that the mercury HQ would be less 
than 1, if further refined to incorporate enhanced site-specific 
analyses such as improved model boundary identification with improved 
soil/water run-off calculations and AERMOD deposition outputs used in 
the TRIM.FaTE model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA Docket records: EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015, Appendix 11 of the 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Taconite Manufacturing Source 
Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed 
Rule, Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Integrated 
Iron and Steel Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology 
Review 2019 Proposed Rule, Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Source Category in 
Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, and 
Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Coal and Oil-
Fired EGU Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology 
Review Proposed Rule and EPA Docket record: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373, 
Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Iron and Steel 
Foundries Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology 
Review 2019 Proposed Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions 
of lead for the Carbon Black Production source category, the EPA 
compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the secondary National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) level for lead (0.15 micrograms 
per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\), arithmetic mean concentration over a 
3-month period). The highest annual average lead concentration, 
0.000099 [micro]g/m\3\, is far below the NAAQS level for lead, 
indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts from lead.
    In determining whether risk is acceptable for this source category, 
the EPA considered all available health information and risk estimation

[[Page 66105]]

uncertainty that includes the uncertainty in the data (See proposal at 
86 FR 3054, section III.C.7, How do we consider uncertainties in risk 
assessment?). The maximum cancer risk for all facilities was below 1-
in-1 million; in addition, there were no facilities with an estimated 
maximum chronic noncancer HI or maximum HQ greater than or equal to 1. 
The EPA weighed all health risk factors in our risk acceptability 
determination, and we proposed that the risk from this source category 
is acceptable. We then considered whether the NESHAP provides an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health, and whether more stringent 
standards were necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect, by 
taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant 
factors. Based upon these considerations, we proposed and are 
finalizing the determination that the 2002 Carbon Black Production 
NESHAP requirements provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health. Based on the results of our environmental risk screening 
assessment, we also proposed and are finalizing the determination that 
more stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect.
2. How did the risk review change for the Carbon Black Production 
source category?
    We did not receive any information that changed our determination 
concerning risk and we are finalizing our proposed conclusion on the 
risk review.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are 
our responses?
    We received several comments regarding the proposed risk review and 
our proposed determination that no revisions to the standard were 
warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2). One commenter supported the 
proposed determination, while another, stated that EPA underestimated 
risks. After review of these comments, we disagreed with the 
commenter's assertion that risks were underestimated and determined no 
changes to the standard were necessary. The comments and our specific 
responses can be found in the document, Summary of Comments and EPA's 
Responses on the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants Carbon Black Production Residual Risk and Technology Review 
and Carbon Black Production Area Sources Technology Review Proposed 
Rule, which is available in docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the risk review?
    We evaluated all the comments on the EPA's risk review and 
determined that no changes are needed. For the reasons explained in the 
proposed rule, we determined that the risk from the Carbon Black 
Production source category is acceptable, the current standards provide 
an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and more stringent 
standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. 
Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we are finalizing our 
residual risk determination as proposed.

B. Technology Review for the Carbon Black Production Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Carbon 
Black Production source category?
    We proposed a determination that it is not necessary to revise the 
existing standards because we did not identify developments in 
practices, processes, or control technologies that would result in 
cost-effective emission reductions for the Carbon Black Production 
source category. However, we did identify a potential gap in the 
regulation, and proposed to broaden the scope of the standards under 
the CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). The final approach related to that 
issue is discussed in section IV.C of this preamble. Additional 
information on our technology review can be found in the memorandum, 
Technology Review for Carbon Black Production Source Category, which is 
available in docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505.
    We also performed a technology review of the Carbon Black 
Production area source NESHAP. As part of that review, the EPA did not 
identify any currently operating sources in the Carbon Black Production 
area source category, and therefore, we proposed no changes. In this 
action, we are finalizing our proposed determination. For more 
information on the review of potential area source facilities see the 
memorandum, Identification of Area Sources for the Carbon Black 
Production NESHAP, which is available in docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505.
2. How did the technology review change for the Carbon Black Production 
source category?
    The technology review did not change from proposal. Therefore, we 
are finalizing our determination that no revisions to the NESHAP are 
necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for both the major and area 
source categories.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    We received two comments regarding the major source proposed 
technology review and our proposed determination that no revisions were 
warranted under CAA section 112(d)(6). Comments suggested changes to 
our technology review to include additional technologies mentioned in 
consent decrees, including incinerators, wet or dry gas scrubbers, and 
selective catalytic reduction technologies. After review of these 
comments, we determined that no changes to the standards were 
necessary. Specifically, we determined that these technologies were not 
cost-effective for controlling HAP from carbon black facilities. The 
comments and our specific responses can be found in the document, 
Summary of Comments and EPA's Responses on the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Carbon Black Production Residual 
Risk and Technology Review and Carbon Black Production Area Sources 
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in docket: EPA-HQ-
OAR-2020-0505. We did not receive any comments on the area source 
category proposed technology review.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the technology review?
    Our technology review sought to identify add-on control technology 
that was not identified during the original NESHAP development and 
improvements to existing add-on controls. We also sought to identify 
new work practices, operational procedures, process changes, pollution 
prevention alternatives, or techniques that have the potential to 
reduce emissions. Based on our review, we did not identify any 
technologies, that would result in cost-effective emission reductions 
for the Carbon Black Production source category. Since proposal, no 
information has been presented to cause us to change the proposed 
determination. Consequently, we are finalizing our CAA section 
112(d)(6) determination as proposed.

[[Page 66106]]

C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to 112(d)(2) and (3) for 
the Carbon Black Production source category?

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for 
the Carbon Black Production source category?
    Under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) we proposed to broaden the 
scope of the existing emission limit in the major source NESHAP, which 
applies to process vents associated with the MUF, to include all 
process vents associated with the carbon black production unit. The 
expansion to cover all process vents under the Carbon Black Production 
MACT standard is in accordance with LEAN v. EPA, 955 F. 3d. 1088 (D.C. 
Cir. 2020), in which the Court held that the EPA has an obligation to 
set standards for unregulated pollutants which the EPA is required to 
regulate as part of technology reviews under CAA section 112(d)(6).
    We proposed to require all process vents that have a HAP 
concentration of the emission stream equal to or greater than 260 ppmv, 
including those located after the MUF, to reduce emissions of total HAP 
by 98 weight-percent or to a concentration of 20 ppmv, whichever is 
less stringent. We also proposed to require applicability testing of 
process vents located after the MUF and compliance with process vent 
standards (where applicability threshold was exceeded) within 1 year 
after the effective date of the final rule.
2. What changed since proposal?
    We are finalizing a longer timeframe for previously unregulated 
process vents to come into compliance with the requirements, since this 
may require the addition of add-on controls. The extension changes the 
proposed compliance date of 1 year from the effective date of the final 
rule to 3 years from the effective date of the final rule.
3. What are the key comments and responses?
    The EPA received comments generally supporting the proposal to 
broaden the emission limit to apply to all process vents that have a 
HAP concentration of the emission stream equal to or greater than 260 
ppmv, associated with the carbon black production unit. One commenter 
requested an extension to the compliance date.
a. Compliance Date Extension
    Comment: The commenter stated that they do not believe carbon black 
facilities will be able to implement the carbon black process vent 
requirements for any previously unregulated process vents within 1 year 
of the effective date. In support of their comment, the commenter 
stated that the EPA has addressed similar situations in final rules by 
allowing up to 3 years from the effective date of the final rule for 
facilities to complete any necessary capital projects as allowed for by 
CAA section 112(i). For a detailed summary of the comment, see the 
document Summary of Comments and EPA's Responses on the National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Carbon Black Production 
Residual Risk and Technology Review and Carbon Black Production Area 
Sources Technology Review Proposed Rule, available in the docket for 
this source category.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commentor that, in the event that 
the applicability test indicates that any newly identified process 
vents are subject and require re-routing to an existing control device 
or the construction of a new control device, the 1-year time period 
that the EPA proposed to allow for carbon black facilities to bring the 
process vents into compliance may be insufficient. As noted by the 
commenter, while the 1-year time frame is sufficient for conducting the 
applicability test, it may not provide enough time to complete the 
process of safely designing and constructing the ductwork necessary to 
either re-route the vent to an existing control device or design and 
construct ductwork for re-routing the vent and a new control device. To 
address this concern, the EPA is extending this time period in the 
final rule and allowing up to 3 years from the effective date of the 
final rule for facilities to complete any necessary capital projects as 
allowed for by CAA section 112(i). The language at 40 CFR 63.1102(e) 
has been amended in the final rule to reflect this change.

D. Amendments Addressing Emissions During Periods of SSM for the Carbon 
Black Production Source Category

1. What amendments did we propose to address emissions during periods 
of SSM?
    The EPA proposed to remove the exemption for periods of startup and 
shutdown. Additionally, we proposed a work practice standard during 
periods of startup that would have allowed carbon black manufacturing 
facilities to vent tail gas upon startup for a period not to exceed 13 
minutes, and to begin running control devices thereafter. The proposed 
work practice standard sought to address safety concerns surrounding 
startup processes at carbon black manufacturing facilities. The EPA 
proposed the work practice standard to mitigate the risk of explosion 
at carbon black manufacturing facilities upon startup due to the 
characteristics of the tail gas. The proposed work practice standard 
addressed combustibility concerns by allowing tail gas to be vented 
through the MUF vent for a short, time-limited period in order to 
prevent excess oxygen from mixing with tail gas. The EPA time-limited 
the proposed work practice standard to ensure sources would begin 
routing tail gas to control devices as soon as practicable, while 
accounting for variability across facilities that impact startup 
procedures.
2. How did the proposed amendments to address emissions during periods 
of SSM requirements change in the final rule?
    The EPA initially proposed that the work practice standard would 
apply for 13 minutes upon startup. Due to comments received on the 
proposal, the EPA is finalizing a work practice standard that applies 
to both startup and shutdown of the reactor. The work practice standard 
allows the closed vent system to the control device to be bypassed, 
during both startup and shutdown of a reactor, when the excess oxygen 
concentration in the closed vent system is greater than or equal to 3 
percent. Additionally, the maximum bypass period for the work practice 
standard is extended from 13 minutes to 15 minutes. To determine when 
the oxygen concentration of the closed vent system falls below 3 
percent, each facility must use the calculated purge duration method or 
oxygen sensors. The language at 40 CFR 63.1003(f)(5) has been amended 
in the final rule to reflect these changes.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM revisions and what are 
our responses?
    The EPA received comments on several aspects of the proposed work 
practice standard. Comments received include requests for (1) site-
specific procedures, (2) expansion of the standard to shutdown periods 
(in addition to startup periods), (3) an increase in the time period 
allowed under the work practice standard, and (4) specific regulatory 
language changes. We are only revising requirements where credible 
technical and/or safety issues were identified, while maintaining the 
goal of minimizing emissions during periods of startup and shutdown to 
the maximum extent practicable. These comments and the

[[Page 66107]]

EPA's response to these comments are provided below.
a. Site-Specific Startup and Shutdown Procedures
    Comment: The commenter stated that factors affecting the time 
needed for startup and shutdown procedures are specific to each 
facility because the time needed to purge the closed vent system and/or 
open and close valves depends on the configuration of the facility, 
common tail gas header, and the production line; the volume of the 
production line; the size of the valves; the production rate; and the 
facility-specific operating procedures and provides an example. To 
allow for this source-specific variability, the commenter suggested 
that instead of relying solely on oxygen concentration, the regulation 
should allow bypass of the control device during startup and shutdown 
of a reactor in accordance with the maximum duration calculated using 
the calculated purge duration method located in the startup and 
shutdown plan (SSP) and that the startup and shutdown occur ``as 
expeditiously as possible.'' The commenter stated that the use of 
oxygen sensors in the MUF is not current industry practices, and that 
of the current 15 major source facilities, only two of them have oxygen 
sensors. The commenter also stated that the calculated purge duration 
method in the SSP would include a calculation of the amount of time it 
takes to purge the production line, as well as a safety factor that 
accounts for the physical and technological constraints of the 
facility; the maximum duration could not be more than 15 minutes. The 
commenter stated that the SSP would provide the amount of time needed 
when completing startup and shutdown ``as expeditiously as possible.'' 
For a more detailed summary of the comment, see the document Summary of 
Comments and EPA's Responses on the National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants Carbon Black Production Residual Risk and 
Technology Review and Carbon Black Production Area Sources Technology 
Review Proposed Rule, which is available in docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-
0505.
    Response: The EPA agrees that the bypass time allowed for a reactor 
to startup or shutdown should be source specific. The EPA acknowledges 
that most facilities currently do not operate oxygen sensors and 
relying solely on oxygen sensors to detect oxygen content in the 
ductwork upon startup and shutdown could lead to undetected pockets of 
high-oxygen concentration gases escaping the sensors, creating an 
explosion risk within the ductwork at a facility.
    Additionally, the EPA agrees that during startup the MUF vent must 
be open and the common tail gas header closed when initially burning 
feedstock oil to purge the line of excess oxygen. If the common tail 
gas header is opened while the oxygen level was above 3 percent, there 
is a risk of explosion due to the combustible nature of the tail gas. 
Once the oxygen level falls below 3 percent (determined by using the 
calculated purge duration method discussed below), the MUF vent must 
gradually close while the common tail gas header is gradually opened. 
This gradual change helps to ensure that constant pressure is 
maintained within the closed vent system and common tail gas header. 
The EPA acknowledges that maintaining constant pressure is important. A 
sudden surge or interruption in tail gas flow could extinguish the 
flame on the control device located downstream of the common tail gas 
header. If the flame is extinguished, there is a risk that combustible 
gases will build up in the common tail gas header; if combustible gases 
build up in the common tail gas header, then these gases could cause an 
explosion when the flame is relit.
    The EPA found that all facilities currently use the calculated 
purge duration method to predict when the oxygen level in the ductwork 
drops below 3 percent. The calculated purge duration method estimates 
the total time a facility needs to safely startup or shutdown a carbon 
black production line by taking into account several factors, including 
the volume of tail gas in the closed vent system, the flowrate within 
the closed vent system, a safety factor, and the time needed to balance 
pressure by opening and closing the necessary valves. Using the 
calculated purge duration method is industry practice for facilities to 
determine when oxygen levels are below 3 percent.
    Since all facilities currently utilize the calculated purge 
duration method, the EPA finds this practice to be representative of 
the best performing facilities within the industry. The EPA is 
declining to require SSPs in the final rule; instead, the EPA is 
finalizing a change from proposal at 40 CFR 63.1103(f) to require 
facilities to utilize the calculated purge duration method to determine 
a site-specific maximum bypass duration upon startup and shutdown. The 
EPA determined that including site-specific requirements at 40 CFR 
63.1103(f) would accomplish the same goal as SSPs without adding 
additional reporting burden.
b. Work Practice Standard Should Apply During Startup and Shutdown
    Comment: The commenter requested that the proposed work practice 
standard be revised to apply during shutdown as well as during startup. 
In support of their comment, the commenter provided a comprehensive 
discussion of the carbon black production startup and shutdown 
processes and the reasoning for their request for modifications to the 
proposed work practice standard requirements. Reasons for expanding the 
work practice to shutdown as well as startup include the similarities 
in the need to maintain constant pressure and to reduce the oxygen 
content in the closed vent system to under 3 percent due to the risk of 
explosion for both startup and shutdown. For a summary of their 
detailed comments regarding startup and shutdown, see the document 
Summary of Comments and EPA's Responses on the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Carbon Black Production Residual 
Risk and Technology Review and Carbon Black Production Area Sources 
Technology Review Proposed Rule, available in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
    Response: Based on the information provided by the commenter, EPA 
agrees that shutdown operations present safety concerns similar to 
those associated with startup. Accordingly, the EPA is finalizing a 
revision to the proposed work practice standard so that it applies to 
both startup and shutdown operations.
    The EPA agrees that the shutdown process presents combustibility 
concerns similar to startup. When facilities stop burning feedstock 
oil, higher oxygen content is created in the closed vent system. This 
creates an explosion risk if the oxygen level rises above 3 percent. 
Therefore, prior to removing feedstock oil from the reactor, the common 
tail gas header vent must be closed completely, diverting closed vent 
system emissions from the common tail gas header to the MUF, before the 
oxygen content begins to increase.
    Similar to startup, constant pressure must be maintained within the 
closed vent system during shutdown operations to reduce the risk of 
explosion. To achieve constant pressure within the closed vent system, 
the MUF vent must be slowly opened while the tail gas header vent is 
slowly closed. Once the tail gas header has been completely closed and 
the MUF vent is completely open, the burning of feedstock oil in the 
reactor ceases. The

[[Page 66108]]

EPA acknowledges that maintaining constant pressure is important. A 
sudden surge or interruption in tail gas flow could extinguish the 
flame on the CCD or other combustion device located downstream of the 
common tail gas header. If the flame is extinguished, there is a risk 
that combustible gases will build up in the common tail gas header; if 
combustible gases build up in the common tail gas header, then these 
gases create an explosion risk when the flame is relit.
c. Work Practice Standard Time Allotment
    Comment: The commenter requested that the maximum time allowed to 
bypass the control device during startup and shutdown of a reactor be 
increased from 13 minutes to 15 minutes. The commenter explained that 
their request for this increase in time is based on the minimum time 
necessary to completely purge the ductwork and MUF of certain 
facilities. The commenter provided that this was previously agreed to 
by the EPA in the consent decrees below.
    In 2007, the EPA began a National Enforcement Initiative to 
investigate the carbon black manufacturing sector. As a result of this 
initiative, each of the International Carbon Black Association (ICBA) 
member companies in the United States entered into a settlement with 
the EPA and the Department of Justice regarding CAA claims 
(hereinafter, the ``Consent Decrees''). The implementation of the terms 
of these Consent Decrees has and will result in substantial changes to 
the facilities as flares are removed and different control technologies 
are installed at a significant cost. Many facilities have already 
implemented the agreed upon technologies and others are in the 
procurement stages.
    The commenter stated that, in the preamble, the EPA explains that 
``the 13-minute allotment to bypass the control device, corresponds 
with the minimum time necessary to completely purge the ductwork and 
primary bag filter of the facility representing the lowest production 
rate.'' However, the commenter suggested that when setting the 13-
minute limit, it appears that the EPA did not fully consider the 
agreed-upon time limit in all of the consent decrees or all of the 
factors which affect how long it takes a facility to purge excess 
oxygen and introduce tail gas to the common tail gas header while 
balancing pressure. The commenter stated that the consent decree for 
Sid Richardson Carbon, Ltd. allowed a 15-minute bypass.8 9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ United States v. Sid Richardson Carbon, Ltd., 3:17-cv-01792-
SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), Consent Decree, filed Dec. 22, 2017, at Sec.  
III.8.oo.
    \9\ United States v. Sid Richardson Carbon, Ltd., 3:17-cv-01792-
SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), Consent Decree, filed Dec. 22, 2017, at Sec.  
III.8.oo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA acknowledges that the consent decree cited by the 
commenter allows a 15-minute control device bypass upon startup for the 
facility subject to the consent decree allotment to bypass the control 
device. In their comment, the commenter provided information to the EPA 
concerning the source-specific nature of startup and shutdown 
operations at carbon black manufacturing facilities, including 
technical support demonstrating that one source subject to this 
rulemaking may need up to 15 minutes to purge the excess oxygen content 
in the MUF vent during startup and shutdown operations in order to 
mitigate combustibility concerns. To address this comment, in the final 
rule, the EPA is extending the proposed 13-minute bypass period to a 
maximum 15-minute bypass period. However, this time period is further 
constrained by the calculated purge duration method. The EPA is also 
finalizing a requirement that facilities subject to this rule use the 
calculated purge duration method to determine the length of the startup 
and/or shutdown bypass period required for a specific facility before 
that specific facility may begin to safely operate control devices, and 
the facility must begin operating control devices as soon as the 
facility may safely do so. In no case do the finalized requirements 
allow the startup or shutdown bypass period to exceed 15 minutes for 
any facility. The EPA is also amending the work practice standard to 
apply to periods of shutdown as well as startup.
    As previously mentioned, carbon black production facilities 
currently use the calculated purge duration method to predict when the 
oxygen level in the closed vent system drops below 3 percent. The 
calculated purge duration method considers the volume of tail gas in 
the closed vent system, with an appropriate safety factor, and the time 
needed to balance pressure and close or open the necessary valves. 
Using the calculated purge duration method is common industry practice 
for facilities to determine when oxygen levels are below 3 percent.
    Since all facilities currently utilize the calculated purge 
duration method, the EPA finds this practice to be representative of 
the best performing facilities within the industry. As previously 
discussed, the EPA is declining to require SSPs. Instead, the EPA is 
modifying the proposed standard at 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(5) to require 
facilities to utilize the calculated purge duration method or oxygen 
sensors to determine a site-specific maximum bypass duration upon 
startup and shutdown. In no case shall the maximum bypass duration 
period exceed 15 minutes for any facility. The calculated purge 
duration method is the same approach underlying the control device 
bypass timeframes included in the enforcement-related consent decrees 
for the carbon black industry.
4. What is the rationale for our changes to the proposed amendments to 
address emissions during periods of SSM in the final rule?
    Based on the consideration of comments received concerning 
technical and safety concerns with the proposed work practice standard, 
the EPA revised the work practice standard provisions in the final 
rule. As discussed in our responses to comments in section IV.C.3 of 
this preamble, we are only revising requirements where credible 
technical and/or safety issues were identified, while maintaining the 
goal of minimizing emissions during periods of startup and shutdown to 
the maximum extent practicable.

E. Other Technical Amendments to the Carbon Black Production NESHAP

1. Boiler and Process Heater Annual Tune-Up Requirements
a. What amendments did we propose for boiler and process heater annual 
tune-up requirements?
    As a result of the EPA's assessment of the MACT standards that 
currently apply to the Carbon Black Production source category under 
subpart YY, the EPA received a comment that there may be instances 
where carbon black production process vents at affected sources route 
emissions to a boiler or process heater for use as fuel gas and may not 
be subject to any requirements. Under the existing standards, although 
emission streams may be subject to the Carbon Black Production MACT, 
these streams are exempt from any requirements under the rule when 
emissions are routed to a boiler or process heater for use as fuel gas. 
Under the Boiler MACT, process heaters and boilers covered under 
another standard (as with the Carbon Black Production MACT) are not 
subject to the Boiler MACT.
    The EPA proposed to revise subpart YY to include boiler and process 
heater annual tune-up requirements for those boilers and process 
heaters that receive

[[Page 66109]]

tail gas for use as fuel gas. These provisions were proposed in 40 CFR 
63.1103(f)(3)(iii) of the final rule. The annual tune-up provisions 
paralleled those specified under the Boiler MACT.
b. How did the proposed boiler and process heater tune-up requirements 
change in the final rule?
    The final rule revises the definition for ``process vent'' to 
remove the fuel gas exemption for the Carbon Black Production source 
category. This revised change ensures that the annual tune-up 
requirements apply to process heaters and boilers, as intended.
    The final rule also revises the text at 40 CFR 
63.1103(f)(3)(iii)(A) (first sentence) to require inspection to be of 
the ``combustion device'' instead of the ``burner,'' and at 40 CFR 
63.1103(f)(iii)(B), (C), (D) and (E) to provide industry-specific 
clarification on tune-up requirements.
c. What key comments did we receive on the proposed annual boiler and 
process heater tune-up requirements and what are our responses?
    The EPA received comments on the proposed boiler and process heater 
tune-up requirements related to the applicability language and 
specified tune-up procedures. These comments and the EPA's responses 
and subsequent changes to the proposed boiler and process heater tune-
up provisions are provided below.
i. Applicability
    Comment: The commenter suggested that the proposed language for the 
annual tune-up requirement be changed so that it applies to the process 
heaters and boilers that the EPA intended. The commenter noted that the 
EPA explained that it added the annual tune-up requirement to close a 
perceived loophole. The commenter stated that they are unsure whether 
the proposed modifications in the proposal achieved the EPA's goal. The 
commenter noted that while the preamble to the proposed rule identifies 
the target of the annual tune-up requirements to be boilers and process 
heaters receiving emissions to use as fuel gas, the language in the 
proposed rule may not apply to the intended boilers or process heaters.
    The commenter explained that, in the current regulations, emission 
streams that are routed to a boiler or process heater for fuel gas are 
not regulated as a process vent, because ``[g]as streams transferred 
for fuel value (i.e., net positive heating value), use reuse, or sale 
for fuel value, use, or reuse,'' are excluded from the definition of 
process vent. 40 CFR 63.1101. Therefore, the commenter noted that when 
emissions are routed to a boiler or process heater for use as fuel gas 
at a carbon black production facility, those points of discharge are 
not process vents. The proposed rule does not alter the definition of 
process vent, and the commenter was uncertain what effect the changes 
to Table 8 of the proposed regulatory text would have on the current 
standards. The commenter stated that changes in Table 8 of the proposed 
regulatory text apply only to ``process vents'' and under the 
definition of process vents, this would necessarily mean that it could 
not include gas streams routed to boilers or process heaters for fuel 
value. For a more detailed summary of the comment, see Summary of 
Comments and EPA's Responses on the National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants Carbon Black Production Residual Risk and 
Technology Review and Carbon Black Production Area Sources Technology 
Review Proposed Rule, which is available in docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-
0505.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges that the proposed regulatory text 
was unclear and could lead to subject facilities not complying with the 
added boiler and process heater requirements. To resolve this issue, 
the EPA is revising the definition for process vent to remove the fuel 
gas exemption for the Carbon Black Production source category. 
Specifically, the EPA is finalizing an amended definition of ``process 
vent'' to remove the exemption for gas streams transferred for fuel 
value, use, reuse, or sale for fuel value, use, or reuse for the carbon 
black production source category.
ii. Annual Tune-Up Requirements
    Comment: Commenters also requested tailored modifications to the 
tune-up requirements to better reflect the specifications of combustion 
devices typically used in the carbon black production process. The 
commenter noted that carbon black combustion devices differ 
significantly from natural gas combustion devices such that not all of 
the proposed tune-up requirements apply In support of their comment, 
the commenter states that additional optimization outside of inspection 
and cleaning may not be possible for all facilities. For a more 
detailed summary of the comment, see Summary of Comments and EPA's 
Responses on the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants Carbon Black Production Residual Risk and Technology Review 
and Carbon Black Production Area Sources Technology Review Proposed 
Rule, which is available in docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that, as a result of 
the nature of the burner configuration and design of tail gas fired 
boilers and process heaters in the Carbon Black Production source 
category, the tune-up requirements of the proposed rule may not be able 
to be performed as written. As the commenter noted, due to the lack of 
an inspection port for the ``typical'' burner configuration used in the 
carbon black production process, it may not be possible to perform a 
direct inspection of the burner in operation, as described in 40 CFR 
63.1103(f)(3)(iii)(A). Thus, the EPA is finalizing the suggested 
revision to the regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(3)(iii)(A) to read 
``[i]nspect the combustion device for damage, wear, and buildup of 
material that could impact effectiveness'' rather than ``inspect the 
burner.'' The EPA disagrees in part with the other changes suggested by 
the commenter. As noted by the commenter, a ``typical'' burner 
configuration may not be amenable to inspection of the flame pattern 
and adjustment of the burner, but it is possible in some 
configurations. The regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(iii)(B) has 
been amended to require the inspection and adjustment only when 
possible based upon the physical configuration of the burner. 
Similarly, the requirements of 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(iii)(C) state to 
``[i]nspect the system controlling the air-to-fuel ratio, as 
applicable, and ensure that it is correctly calibrated and functioning 
properly.'' The EPA agrees that not all configurations of systems 
controlling air-to-fuel ratio have calibrated components, but some 
systems may have components that are calibrated and would need that 
calibration verified. However, if a burner system does not have 
anything to be calibrated, then ensuring proper calibration is not 
necessary; the inspection of the fuel to air ratio controlling 
mechanism in that case could be as simple as verifying that there are 
no obstructions to the air intake in a natural draft system and 
verifying proper fan operation for a fixed air flow fan. For these 
reasons, the EPA also agrees that 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(iii)(C) should not 
be finalized as proposed and is amending the final language to reflect 
that ensuring proper calibration is only necessary for calibrated 
components of the air-to-fuel system.
    The EPA disagrees with the commenter that 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(iii)(D) 
and (E) should not be finalized and disagrees that measurement of 
carbon monoxide (CO)

[[Page 66110]]

is a poor indicator of optimized performance. As CO is a primary 
component of tail gas, any tail gas not combusted by the boiler or 
process heater will result in CO emissions. Additionally, CO is 
produced from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons in the tail 
gas. During proper operation of the combustion device, the output of CO 
from either uncombusted tail gas or from incomplete combustion is 
minimized. The EPA agrees that optimization beyond the inspection and 
cleaning required in 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(iii)(A) may not be possible for 
the configuration of some carbon black facility combustion devices. In 
such a scenario, the proposed language of 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(iii)(D) was 
clear that ``[t]his optimization should be consistent with the 
manufacturer's specifications, if available.'' In instances where there 
are no manufacturer's recommendations for optimization, the cleaning of 
the combustion device constitutes the optimization procedure, and CO 
measurement should be taken before and after cleaning the combustion 
device. The regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(iii)(D) has been 
amended from that proposed to more clearly reflect that, in the cases 
where no manufacturer's specification for optimization are available, 
the inspection and cleaning procedures of 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(iii)(A) 
fulfill the requirements of optimization and that when available, 
manufacturer's specification should be used for the optimization 
procedure. The regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(iii)(E) has been 
amended from that proposed to reflect that if adjustments are not or 
cannot be made, the measurements of CO are performed after the 
inspection and cleaning procedures of 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(iii)(A) are 
performed.
d. What is the rationale for our final changes to the proposed boiler 
and process heater annual tune-up provisions?
    Based on the consideration of comments received on the combustion 
devices typically used in the carbon black production process, we 
clarified and revised the applicability and requirements of the annual 
boiler and process heater tune-up requirements to better reflect the 
combustion devices typically used. See our comment response directly 
above in subsection ii, for our rationale for revisions based on our 
evaluation of comments.

V. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the 
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing 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 (when applicable). 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 available in the docket for this 
source category.

A. Residual Risk Review for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Source 
Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Cyanide 
Chemicals Manufacturing source category?
    On January 15, 2021 (86 FR 3906), the EPA proposed that risk posed 
by emissions from the source category is acceptable, that the current 
NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and 
that additional standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. The EPA sets standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting approach, with an 
analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers 
all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and 
includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately 1-in-10 
thousand.'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). The maximum estimated 
cancer risk was below the presumptive limit of acceptability and the 
noncancer risk results indicate there is minimal likelihood of adverse 
noncancer health effects due to HAP emissions from this source 
category. The proposed decision on ample margin of safety was based on 
weighing factors relevant to this particular source category, including 
the risk posed by emissions from the category and the costs and cost-
effectiveness of additional controls to reduce risk further, as well as 
uncertainties in the baseline emissions estimates used in estimating 
risk, the costs and effectiveness of the work practices we considered 
to reduce these emissions, and the amount of risk reduction that could 
be achieved with the work practices. A more thorough discussion of the 
risk assessment is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk 
and Technology Review 2021 Final Rule document, available in the docket 
for cyanide chemicals manufacturing (Docket-EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532). In 
the proposed rule, as presented in Table 2 below, based on modeling 
actual emissions from the source category for all 13 facilities, we 
estimated inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed was 
equal to 5-in-1 million. The estimated incidence of cancer due to 
inhalation exposures resulting from emissions from the source category 
was 0.004 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case every 250 
years with 61,653 people exposed to an excess cancer risk greater than 
or equal to 1-in-1 million due to inhalation exposure to HAP emissions 
from the source category. Emissions of acrylonitrile from process vents 
account for 95 percent of the cancer incidence. The Agency estimated 
that the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI from inhalation exposure for 
this source category was equal to 1. In the screening assessment of 
worst-case acute inhalation impacts, we estimated a maximum HQ of 1 
(due to hydrogen cyanide) based on the REL. In the proposal, the EPA 
estimated risks based on actual and allowable emissions from cyanide 
chemicals manufacturing sources, and we considered these in determining 
acceptability. As shown in Table 2, the chronic cancer and non-cancer 
risks are the same for allowable emissions as they are for actual 
emissions.

                                               Table 2--Inhalation Risk Assessment Summary for Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing \1\ Source Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Estimated
                                                               Maximum       population at      Estimated
                                             Number of       individual     increased risk    population at   Estimated annual     Maximum  chronic noncancer        Maximum  screening acute
             Risk assessment              facilities \2\  cancer risk  (1-     of cancer     increased risk   cancer incidence             TOSHI \4\                     noncancer HQ \5\
                                                            in-1 million)      >=1-in-1     of cancer  >=10-  (cases per year)
                                                                 \3\            million       in-1 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Baseline Actual Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category.........................              13                 5          61,653                 0             0.004  1 (neurological)...............  1 (REL).
Facility-wide...........................              13               200         266,532            58,000              0.04  1 (neurological).                ...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 66111]]

 
                                                                                  Baseline Allowable Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category.........................              13                 5          61,653                 0             0.004  1 (neurological).                ...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on actual and allowable emissions.
\2\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk assessment. Includes 13 operating cyanide chemicals manufacturing facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY.
\3\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions.
\4\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Cyanide Chemical Manufacturing source category is the neurological system.
\5\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. The acute HQ shown was based upon the lowest acute
  1-hour dose-response value, the REL for hydrogen cyanide. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest available acute dose-response value.

    The EPA also estimated inhalation risk based on facility-wide 
emissions. The estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk 
based on facility-wide emissions was 200-in-1 million, with 0.04 excess 
cancer cases per year, or one case every 25 years. This cancer risk is 
driven by emissions sources that are not in the Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing source category; specifically, emissions of ethylene 
oxide and polycyclic organic matter from non-category sources account 
for 95 percent of the cancer incidence. Approximately 150 people are 
exposed to an excess cancer risk greater than or equal to 100-in-1 
million, with 266,532 people exposed to an excess cancer risk above 1-
in-1 million. The estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI values for 
the facility-wide assessment was the same as estimated based on actual 
and allowable emissions from the source category. The TOSHI value was 
equal to 1 for neurological effects driven by hydrogen cyanide 
emissions from process vents, wastewater, and equipment leaks.
    Regarding the facility-wide risks due to ethylene oxide emissions, 
which are emitted by sources that are not part of the Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing source category, we intend to continue to evaluate those 
facility-wide estimated emissions and risks further and may address 
these in separate actions, as appropriate. In particular, the EPA is 
addressing ethylene oxide in response to the results of the latest 
National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) released in August 2018, which 
identified the chemical as a potential concern in several areas across 
the country.\10\ The latest NATA estimates that ethylene oxide 
significantly contributes to potential elevated cancer risks in some 
census tracts across the U.S. (less than 1 percent of the total number 
of tracts). These elevated risks are largely driven by an EPA risk 
value that was updated in late 2016. The EPA is taking steps to address 
ethylene oxide emissions by: (1) Reviewing and, as appropriate, 
revising CAA regulations for facilities that emit ethylene oxide--
starting with air toxics emissions standards for miscellaneous organic 
chemical manufacturing facilities (85 FR 49084, August 12, 2020) and 
commercial sterilizers; and (2) working with industry and state, local, 
and tribal air agencies to achieve near-term emission reductions. The 
EPA posts updates on its work to address ethylene oxide at: https://www.epa.gov/ethylene-oxide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NATA is the Agency's nationwide air toxics screening tool, 
designed to help the EPA and state, local, and tribal air agencies 
identify areas, pollutants, or types of sources for further 
examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also conducted a multipathway screening assessment for the 
source category, and the results of the screening assessment are 
presented in the risk report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2021 
Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, and section IV of the proposal 
preamble (86 FR 3906, January 15, 2021) available in the docket for 
this action. A screening value is not an estimate of the cancer risk or 
a noncancer HQ (or HI). Rather, a screening value represents a high-end 
estimate of what the risk or HQ may be. For this source category the 
highest cancer screening value was a Tier 2 cancer screening value less 
than 1 for arsenic emissions, which means that we are confident that 
the multipathway cancer risk is lower than 1-in-1 million. The highest 
Tier 2 non-cancer screening value for the category was less than 1 for 
mercury emissions, which can be interpreted to mean that we are 
confident that the chronic HQ for mercury is less than 1.
    In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions 
of lead, the EPA compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the 
secondary NAAQS level for lead (0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/
m\3\), arithmetic mean concentration over a 3-month period). The 
highest annual average lead concentration, 0.000004 ug/m\3\, is far 
below the NAAQS level for lead, indicating a low potential for 
multipathway impacts from lead.
    Based on the results of the environmental risk screening analysis, 
we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP 
emissions from this source category. For further additional detail on 
the environmental risk screening assessment, refer to the Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Source Category in 
Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2021 Final Rule.
    In determining whether risk is acceptable for this source category, 
the EPA considered all available health information and risk estimation 
uncertainty, including the uncertainty in the emissions data. Further 
discussion of the uncertainties in our risk assessment can be found in 
section III.C.7 of the preamble to the proposed rule at 86 FR 3918. 
Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost and 
feasibility of available control technologies and other measures 
(including the controls, measures, and costs reviewed under the 
technology review) that could be applied to this source category to 
further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP 
from the source category. At proposal, we determined that the risk from 
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing emissions is acceptable and that the 
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health 
and prevent an adverse environmental effect. In this action, we are 
finalizing our proposed determination. See section IV.C of the proposal 
preamble (86 FR 3906, 3923-3924) for a discussion of the results of our 
risk assessment and analyses and our proposed decisions

[[Page 66112]]

regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse 
environmental effects. The EPA is not amending the Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing NESHAP based on the risk review conducted pursuant to CAA 
section 112(f). The maximum cancer risk for all facilities was 5-in-1 
million, which is 20 times below 100-in-1 million, the presumptive 
upper limit of acceptable risk. In addition, there were no facilities 
with an estimated maximum chronic noncancer HI or maximum HQ greater 
than 1. Based upon these considerations and the lack of additional 
cost-effective control technologies to reduce risk further, we proposed 
and are finalizing a determination that the 2002 Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing NESHAP requirements provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health. Based on the results of our environmental risk 
screening assessment, we also proposed and are finalizing a 
determination that more stringent standards are not necessary to 
prevent an adverse environmental effect.
2. How did the risk review change for the Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing source category?
    We did not receive any information that changed our determination 
concerning risk and we are finalizing our proposed conclusion on the 
risk review.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are 
our responses?
    We received several comments regarding the proposed risk review and 
our proposed determination that no revisions to the standard were 
warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2). Comments both supported and 
suggested changes to our risk review. Commenters opposed our proposed 
decisions regarding risk acceptability and certain aspects of our risk 
assessment methodology. After review of these comments, we determined 
that no changes to the standard were necessary because the current 
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. 
The comments and our specific responses can be found in the document, 
Summary of Comments and EPA's Responses on the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing 
Residual Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available 
in docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the risk review?
    We evaluated all the comments on the EPA's risk review and 
determined that no changes are needed. For the reasons explained in the 
proposed rule, we determined that the risk from the Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing source category is acceptable, the current standards 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and more 
stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we 
are finalizing our residual risk determination as proposed.

B. Technology Review for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Source 
Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the 
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category?
    At proposal, we proposed to determine that it is not necessary to 
revise the existing standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) because 
we did not identify developments in practices, processes, or control 
technologies that would result in cost-effective emission reductions 
for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category. Additional 
information on our technology review can be found in the memorandum, 
Technical Support Document for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing 
NESHAP Residual Risk and Technology Review Proposal, which is available 
in the docket for this action (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532-
0025) and section IV.D of the proposal preamble (86 FR 3924). The EPA 
is not amending the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP based on our 
technology review. However, we did identify a potential gap in the 
regulation, and proposed standards for process wastewater at existing 
sources and upstream suppression of process wastewater at new sources 
under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). The final approach related to 
that issue is discussed in section V.C of this preamble.
2. How did the technology review change for the Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing source category?
    The technology review did not change from proposal. Therefore, we 
are finalizing our determination that no revisions to the NESHAP are 
necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    We received two comments regarding the proposed technology review 
and our proposed determination that no revisions were warranted under 
CAA section 112(d)(6). One commenter suggested changes to our 
technology review to include additional technologies related to flares 
and equipment leaks. After review of these comments, we determined that 
no changes to the standards were necessary because these technologies 
would not result in cost-effective emission reductions for the cyanide 
chemicals manufacturing source category. The comments and our specific 
responses can be found in the document, Summary of Comments and EPA's 
Responses on the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Residual Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in docket: EPA-HQ-
OAR-2020-0532.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the technology review?
    Our technology review sought to identify add-on control technology 
that was not identified during the original NESHAP development and 
improvements to existing add-on controls. We also sought to identify 
new work practices, operational procedures, process changes, pollution 
prevention alternatives, or techniques that have the potential to 
reduce emissions. Based on our review, we did not identify any such 
developments that would result in cost-effective emission reductions 
for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category. Since 
proposal, no information has been presented to cause us to change the 
proposed determination. Consequently, we are finalizing our CAA section 
112(d)(6) determination as proposed.

C. Amendments Addressing Emissions During Periods of SSM for the 
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Source Category

1. What amendments did we propose to address emissions during periods 
of SSM?
    Consistent with the 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA 
evaluated the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP requirements to 
identify the need to eliminate any SSM exemptions in the rule to ensure 
that standards that apply during normal operations apply at all times. 
As noted at proposal (86 FR 3906, 3924), the Cyanide Chemicals

[[Page 66113]]

Manufacturing source category NESHAP did not include an exemption for 
SSM events, and already included standards that apply at all times, 
including periods of SSM. Therefore, we determined that the NESHAP was 
already consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, in which the Court vacated 
two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to comply 
with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during 
periods of SSM. However, we proposed revisions to subpart YY at 40 CFR 
63.1108 through 40 CFR 63.1112 to remove any references associated with 
the GMACT that contained SSM exemptions for other source categories and 
from referenced subparts to reduce confusion. The EPA did not propose 
any other amendments addressing emissions during SSM periods because of 
our determination that the NESHAP already included standards that apply 
at all times, including periods of SSM.
2. How did the proposed SSM-related amendments change in the final 
rule?
    We are finalizing our proposal to remove SSM exemption language 
included in 40 CFR 63.1108 through 40 CFR 63.1112 and GMACT referenced 
subparts.
3. What key comments did we receive on SSM-related emissions and what 
are our responses?
    While one commenter provided support for the EPA's removal of 
references to provisions that contained SSM exemptions for other source 
categories and from referenced subparts to reduce confusion, the 
commenter expressed concern that the EPA had not removed references to 
SSM exemptions in HON-referenced provisions and that the EPA must 
assure full removal of SSM exemptions in the final rule to assure 
compliance with the CAA.
    Other commenters expressed concern that the EPA had not established 
work practice standards to cover situations that they contend had been 
covered under their SSM plan included under the SSM exemption 
requirements that were proposed to be removed. The commenter requested 
that the EPA include provisions for specified circumstances that were 
previously covered under their SSM plan similar to what was included 
for the ethylene production source category in subpart YY.
    These comments and the EPA's responses to these comments are 
provided below.
a. Elimination of the SSM Exemption
    Comment: One commenter noted that SSM events play a considerable 
role in the issue of pollution and environmental contamination as these 
processes increase an industrial plant's pollution and noted concern 
that the EPA would continue to maintain SSM exemptions in this rule. 
Another commenter supported the removal of the SSM exemptions, stating 
that removal of these provisions is required to assure compliance with 
the CAA because this is a `necessary' revision under CAA section 
112(d)(6).
    Response: As discussed in section V.C.1 of this preamble, we are 
finalizing revisions (as proposed) to subpart YY at 40 CFR 63.1108 
through 40 CFR 63.1112 to remove any references associated with the 
GMACT that contained SSM exemptions for other source categories and 
referenced subparts.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA's proposed standards are 
illegal because the HON standard the EPA is proposing to incorporate 
for wastewater requirements includes the illegal SSM exemption that the 
EPA admits it must remove from the cyanide chemical manufacturing rules 
here under CAA section 112(d)(6). The commenter stated that the EPA may 
not lawfully remove the exemption and then immediately reinstate it by 
incorporation of an equally illegal SSM exemption in the HON.
    Response: The EPA assessed the specific HON wastewater provisions 
referenced in the proposed Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing MACT rule 
and did not identify any language containing exemptions for periods of 
SSM. The commenter made a general allegation about exemptions and did 
not identify any specific provisions that contained exemptions. The EPA 
has therefore not made changes to the final rule based on this comment.
b. Pressure Relief Devices (PRD) in HAP Service
    Comment: One commenter stated, ``[p]ressure relief discharges to 
the atmosphere from cyanide chemicals manufacturing covered processes 
are rare. However, if a discharge from a [PRD] occurs, it would 
currently be addressed under the SSM plan and the emissions would be 
reported to the appropriate regulatory entities if the amount is 
greater than an applicable Reportable Quantity (RQ) for any air 
contaminant.'' The commenter contended that, because the SSM plan will 
be proposed to be withdrawn 180 days after the rule is amended, ``any 
modifications to the process or additions of emissions control 
equipment are not feasible in this timeframe.'' Therefore, the 
commenter suggested including in this rule the same work practice 
requirements for PRDs that are in the subpart YY regulation for the 
ethylene production source category, which the commenter alleges also 
has a small number of PRDs venting to the atmosphere.
    Specifically, the commenter recommended that the EPA incorporate 
the work practice standards of 40 CFR 63.1107(h)(3) through (8) within 
the Cyanide Chemicals manufacturing rule in order to ``address any 
potential discharge from a [PRD] that is on fixed equipment and to 
exempt any [PRD] from infeasible monitoring for portable containers and 
mobile equipment.'' The commenter requested that any referenced 
citations in the aforementioned section be aligned with the Cyanide 
Chemicals Manufacturing MACT rule and noted that certain ethylene flare 
provisions are not applicable to this source category.
    Additionally, the commenter suggested that the associated 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.1109(i) and 
63.1110(e)(8) may also be appropriate to add to the rule in support of 
the PRD work practice standards.
    Response: The EPA has not added the provisions requested by the 
commenter. While these or similar provisions exist in NESHAP for some 
source categories, the EPA does not have data (nor was sufficient data 
provided) to demonstrate that such provisions are warranted for the 
cyanide chemicals manufacturing NESHAP. The commenter requested these 
provisions be added to the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP 
because they exist in the Ethylene Production NESHAP. The commenter did 
not definitively assert that any PRDs exist that would be subject to 
this action, nor whether they are controlled or atmospheric PRDs.
    The commenter stated that there is insufficient time to implement 
process modifications/add emissions control equipment within 180 days 
after the rule is amended. This statement acknowledged that the process 
can be modified and emissions control equipment can be used to meet 
standards at all times. Without data to support the need for specific 
work practice provisions for PRDs, including the prevalence of PRDs, 
whether they are routed to control devices, the frequency of releases, 
magnitude of emissions during releases, and costs of further controls, 
we have insufficient basis to add these requirements for the

[[Page 66114]]

cyanide chemicals manufacturing source category.
c. Maintenance Vents
    Comment: One commenter requested that, since the SSM plan and 
various exceptions are proposed to be removed within 180 days after the 
rule is amended, the same work practice requirements for maintenance 
vents that are in the subpart YY regulation for the ethylene production 
source category be included ``so that it is clear that equipment can be 
cleared and opened for maintenance or other similar work.''
    The commenter provided that some covered facilities include similar 
work practice provisions in Texas New Source Review air permits for 
routine maintenance activities. According to the commenter, 
``[i]ncluding provisions for maintenance vents in the final rule will 
clarify the requirements when these maintenance activities occur.''
    The commenter suggested the following requirements and options when 
incorporating the subpart YY regulation for the ethylene production 
source category maintenance vents language:

 Limit the lower explosive limit (LEL) to 10 percent; and
 Limit the concentration of hydrocarbons or hydrogen cyanide to 
500 ppmv measured using one of the following options:
    [cir] The use of an instrument that complies with EPA Method 21 in 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A (measures total hydrocarbon concentration)
    [cir] The use of colorimetric gas detector tubes provided the tube 
is used in accordance with manufacturer's guidelines (measures hydrogen 
cyanide concentration); or
    [cir] The use of an electrochemical sensor for hydrogen cyanide 
(measures hydrogen cyanide concentration).

    Furthermore, the commenter suggested that the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.1109(f) and 63.1110(e)(5) may also 
be appropriate to add to the rule in support of the maintenance venting 
provisions.
    Response: The EPA has not made the commenter's suggested revisions. 
The commenter did not provide sufficient information regarding why they 
could not meet the standards or why their suggested requirements should 
be included.
    Additionally, neither limiting the LEL to 10 percent nor limiting 
the concentration to 500 ppmv when considering hydrogen cyanide are 
defensible. The 10 percent LEL for hydrogen cyanide in air is 5,600 
ppm. Hydrogen cyanide is highly toxic by all routes of exposure and may 
cause central nervous system, cardiovascular, and respiratory effects 
that could lead to death. The Occupational and Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) has concluded that a variety of symptoms are 
associated with exposure to hydrogen cyanide at levels less than 10 ppm 
and has established a 4.7-ppm 15-minute short term exposure limit 
(STEL) as the permissible exposure limit (PEL).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/74908.html, 1988 OSHA PEL 
Project--Hydrogen Cyanide [verbar] NIOSH [verbar] CDC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Storage Vessel Degassing--Fixed Roof Storage Tanks
    Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA include the same 
requirements for storage vessel degassing for fixed roof tanks that are 
in the subpart YY regulation for the ethylene production source 
category. The commenter suggested the following requirements and 
options when incorporating the subpart YY regulation for ethylene 
production storage vessel degassing language:

 Limit the LEL to 10 percent; and
 Limit the concentration of hydrocarbons or hydrogen cyanide to 
500 ppmv measured using one of the following options:
    [cir] The use of an instrument that complies with EPA Method 21 in 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A (measures total hydrocarbon concentration)
    [cir] The use of colorimetric gas detector tubes provided the tube 
is used in accordance with manufacturer's guidelines (measures hydrogen 
cyanide concentration); or
    [cir] The use of an electrochemical sensor for hydrogen cyanide 
(measures hydrogen cyanide concentration).

    Response: The EPA has not made the commenter's requested revisions. 
However, insufficient information was provided to support their 
contention that they could not meet the standards during storage vessel 
degassing or why their suggested requirements should be included.
    As discussed in section V.C.3.c above for Maintenance Vents, 
neither limiting the LEL to 10 percent or limiting the concentration to 
500 ppmv when considering hydrogen cyanide are defensible. The 10 
percent LEL for hydrogen cyanide in air is 5,600 ppm. Hydrogen cyanide 
is highly toxic by all routes of exposure and may cause central nervous 
system, cardiovascular, and respiratory effects that could lead to 
death. The OSHA has concluded that a variety of symptoms are associated 
with exposure to hydrogen cyanide at levels less than 10 ppm and has 
established a 4.7-ppm 15-minute STEL as the PEL.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/74908.html, 1988 OSHA PEL 
Project--Hydrogen Cyanide [verbar] NIOSH [verbar] CDC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. What is the rationale for our final changes to the SSM-related 
amendments?
    We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments 
to the SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule 
(86 FR 3906, 3924), we determined that these amendments, which remove 
and revise provisions related to SSM, are necessary to ensure there is 
no confusion that standards are required to apply at all times, 
consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA. More information concerning the 
amendments we are finalizing for SSM is in the preamble to the proposed 
rule and in our specific responses to the comments above (section 
V.C.3). Therefore, we are finalizing our amendments for the SSM 
provisions as proposed.

D. Other Technical Amendments to the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing 
NESHAP

1. What wastewater provision amendments did we propose?
    As discussed in section II.D of this preamble and in the proposal 
preamble for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP (see 86 FR 
3906, 3920-3921), the EPA proposed standards pursuant to CAA sections 
112(d)(2) and (d)(3) for process wastewater from existing cyanide 
chemical manufacturing process units, which was previously unregulated. 
We proposed that process wastewater sources at existing sources comply 
with HON wastewater requirements. We proposed the HON requirements for 
cyanide chemicals manufacturing existing sources because the HON 
requirements represented: (1) The measures employed by the best 
performing sources in the category; and (2) an acceptable means of 
compliance for wastewater emissions at sources subject to subpart YY. 
We also proposed adding the HON requirements for waste management units 
upstream of an open or closed biological treatment process to the new 
source standard to ensure demonstrable compliance measures are in place 
for these sources.

[[Page 66115]]

2. How did the proposed wastewater provision amendments change in the 
final rule?
    We are finalizing the proposed wastewater provision amendments with 
minor clarifications (see section V.D.3.d).
3. What key comments did we receive on the proposed wastewater 
provision amendments and what are our responses?
    Environmental groups provided comments on the basis for the EPA's 
selected standards and contended that the proposed limits were not 
sufficient to satisfy CAA sections 112(d)(2)-(3), which requires the 
maximum achievable degree of emission limitation.
    Industry commenters requested that clarifications of the 
applicability of the wastewater requirements be included in the final 
rule and that the EPA provide additional compliance options to what was 
proposed in the final rule. These commenters also requested that the 
EPA include a test method for hydrogen cyanide or cyanide compounds in 
the final rule.
    These comments and the EPA's responses are provided below.
a. Basis-Support for Wastewater Provisions
    Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's recognition that it must 
set limits on uncontrolled HAP emissions from process wastewater under 
CAA section 112(d)(6)--including hydrogen cyanide, acetonitrile, and 
acrylonitrile,\13\ but contended that the limits are not strong enough 
to satisfy CAA sections 112(d)(2)-(3), which requires the maximum 
achievable degree of emission limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 86 FR at 3920 & n.23, 3921.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter stated that the EPA proposes ``to just require 
compliance with the [HON] wastewater requirements for process 
wastewater and upstream waste management units at existing sources--and 
to add HON requirements for waste management units.'' \14\ The 
commenter claimed that the EPA does not discuss what the proposed 
requirements are in the preamble other than referencing the outdated 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 86 FR at 3921.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the commenter, the EPA's proposed wastewater standards 
are ``illegally and arbitrarily weak and must be strengthened before 
finalizing.'' The commenter stated that the EPA has not performed any 
floor analysis as required by CAA section 112(d)(3) and instead appears 
to rely on the outdated 2008 HON rule and old and unreliable data, not 
included here, as its justification for not requiring stronger 
wastewater standards. The commenter noted that there is no assessment 
of what the best-performing standards have achieved, or what the 
average emission limitation achieved is. The commenter added that the 
EPA also does not demonstrate that the 2008 HON standards satisfy the 
CAA sections 112(d)(2)-(3) test for cyanide chemical manufacturing 
wastewater process sources.
    Lastly, the commenter asserted that the EPA's proposed wastewater 
standards are illegal and arbitrary because the EPA has given only a 
conclusory statement to attempt to satisfy the beyond-the-floor 
requirement of CAA section 112(d)(2). According to the commenter, the 
EPA has failed to show how its proposal reflects the ``maximum 
achievable'' degree of emission limitation for these sources. The 
commenter stated that citing to data not in the record from 2004, 
without discussion or any rational explanation, does not meet the EPA's 
statutory obligation. The commenter contended that the EPA should 
collect current data, review more recent wastewater control methods, 
and perform a lawful beyond-the-floor analysis to ensure that it 
requires the ``maximum achievable'' degree of emission reduction in the 
final standards.
    Response: The EPA evaluated the data available to the Agency at the 
time the proposed MACT standards for process wastewater at existing 
cyanide chemicals manufacturing sources were developed. We also 
reviewed title V permits for all cyanide chemicals manufacturing 
facilities and determined that all existing facilities subject to the 
cyanide NESHAP are also subject to the HON wastewater requirements or 
other NESHAP that also incorporate those requirements. We concluded 
that these requirements constitute the performance of the best 
performing facilities in the source category. These standards represent 
the best measures that we identified for minimizing wastewater 
emissions from the category, and we did not identify additional 
measures that could further reduce emissions ``beyond the floor''. The 
commenter did not provide any data to support their conclusion that 
these requirements are not representative of the best performers.
    Our conclusion at proposal that the HON process wastewater 
requirements represent the MACT floor has not changed and we are 
finalizing those requirements with minor clarifications (see section 
V.D.3.d of this preamble for minor clarification changes made in the 
final rule).
b. Fraction Measured (Fm)/Fraction Removal (Fr) Values for Hydrogen 
Cyanide/Cyanide Compounds
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the EPA provide a Fm value 
for hydrogen cyanide or cyanide compounds so that the regulated entity 
can comply with the applicability option described in 40 CFR 
63.144(b)(1) of subpart G. Similarly, the commenter also requested that 
the EPA provide a Fr value for hydrogen cyanide or cyanide compounds so 
that the regulated entity can comply with the option available in 40 
CFR 63.138(e)(2) of subpart G. The commenter recommended that this 
value would be no greater than 0.93, as it is the removal requirement 
for new cyanide chemicals manufacturing process units, but also noted 
it could be less based on the physical properties of hydrogen cyanide 
or cyanide compounds.
    Response: 40 CFR 63.144(b)(1) allows several options for 
determining how to calculate the annual average concentration, 
including knowledge of the wastewater, bench-scale or pilot scale test 
data, or test data from sampling at the point of determination or at a 
location downstream of the point of determination. For free cyanide, 
the final rule adds specific procedures for determining the annual 
average concentration of free cyanide (see 40 CFR 63.1103(g)(5)(vi) of 
the final rule). For compliance with the wastewater free cyanide 
analysis provisions of Table 9 to 40 CFR 63.1103(g), free cyanide is to 
be measured according to ASTM D4282-15 (Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Free Cyanide in Water and Wastewater by 
Microdiffusion) or ASTM D7237 (Standard Test Method for Free Cyanide 
and Aquatic Free Cyanide with Flow Injection Analysis (FIA) Utilizing 
Gas Diffusion Separation and Amperometric Detection). Under 40 CFR 
63.144(b)(1) of subpart G, Fm adjustment factors are allowed under 
specified circumstances (e.g., when concentration is determined by 
Method 305 as specified in 40 CFR 63.144(b)(5)(i)(B), concentration may 
be adjusted by dividing by the compound-specific Fm). For free cyanide 
measured according to ASTM D4282-15 or ASTM D7237 (as required under 
the final rule), the EPA is not including an Fm adjustment factor 
option.
    In addition to the compliance option available under 40 CFR 
63.138(e)(2) of the rule that requires an Fr value to demonstrate 
compliance, an owner or operator has other compliance options that do 
not require an Fr value.

[[Page 66116]]

However, the EPA acknowledges that existing sources complying with 40 
CFR part 63 subpart G wastewater provisions may already be complying 
with wastewater requirements under the 40 CFR part 63 subpart G 
wastewater provisions that require an Fr value for individual HAP in 
order to demonstrate compliance. To allow flexibility to owners and 
operators in complying with the process wastewater options that we 
proposed for cyanide chemicals manufacturing existing sources under 40 
CFR 63.138(a)(1), the final rule has added that, for compliance options 
and calculations requiring an Fr value under 40 CFR 63.138(a)(1), an 
owner or operator may use a value of 0.93 for free cyanide (see Table 9 
to 40 CFR 63.1103(g), line entry (g) of the final rule). This value is 
based on the requirement that new sources meet an emissions control 
level of 93 percent for process wastewater streams.
c. Hydrogen Cyanide/Cyanide Compound Test Methods To Measure Wastewater 
Stream Concentration
    Comment: One commenter stated that the HON regulation includes a 
number of options for determining the concentration of the regulated 
organic HAP compounds in a process wastewater stream. The commenter 
provided that the existing 40 CFR 63.144(b)(5)(i) of the HON regulation 
does not have a listed test method for hydrogen cyanide or cyanide 
compounds. The commenter recommended that the EPA include any approved 
test methods in Table 1B of 40 CFR 136.3 in the final Cyanide Chemicals 
manufacturing rule (subpart YY) for these measurements that the 
regulated entity can use if they opt to make measurements.
    The commenter also requested that EPA include any updates to the 
test method(s) automatically in the rule as an option for the regulated 
entities to use. The commenter suggested that, if EPA Method 335.4 is 
updated in the future, the regulated entity should be able to use 
either EPA Method 335.4 or the updated method.
    Response: The EPA has added 40 CFR 63.1103(g)(5)(vi) to include two 
test methods for measuring the concentration of cyanide in water (ASTM 
4282-15 and ASTM 7237-18). The test methods in the table submitted by 
the commenter were not included because they corresponded to parameters 
that were irrelevant (total cyanide concentration and available cyanide 
concentration) or were, subsequent to the submission of the comment, 
supplanted by a new version of the method in Table 1B. Available 
cyanide refers to cyanide that is loosely bound in metal-ion complexes, 
and total cyanide refers to the sum of available and free cyanide. Free 
cyanide is toxic and bioavailable cyanide, and this is the form of 
cyanide that the EPA intends to limit. Table 1B of 40 CFR 136.3 was 
updated July 19, 2021 (86 FR 27226) to incorporate updated versions of 
the free cyanide methods. The updated versions of the two ASTM methods 
for free cyanide are included in the final rule, but the OI Analytical 
method was excluded, as the method text actually describes how to 
measure available cyanide and does not include information on the 
modifications necessary to test for free cyanide. EPA Method 335.4 was 
not included as this method is only available in draft and has not yet 
been finalized.
d. Request for Clarifications
    Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA clarify the text in 
the proposed paragraph (g) of Table 9 of the proposed 40 CFR part 63 
subpart YY regulation to confirm that the provisions apply to each 
individual wastewater stream.
    Response: The EPA has revised line entries (g)(1) and (g)(2) (for 
existing sources) of Table 9 to 63.1103(g) in the final rule as 
recommended by the commenter to clarify the EPA's intent that the 
wastewater requirements apply to each individual wastewater stream.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the EPA clarify that the 
term ``cyanide compounds'' is the same as ``cyanide chemicals 
product''.
    Response: The EPA has added a definition for the term ``free 
cyanide'' in 40 CFR 63.1103(g)(2) to clarify the EPA's intent that 
hydrogen cyanide and cyanide ion (both of which may be present in 
wastewater due to dissolution of cyanide salts) are the cyanide 
chemical compounds subject to the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing 
source category wastewater provisions.
4. What is the rationale for our final changes to proposed wastewater 
provision amendments?
    We evaluated the comments on the EPA's proposed process wastewater 
amendments for existing and new sources. For the reasons explained in 
the proposed rule (86 FR 3906, 3920-3921), we determined that the 
process wastewater amendments for existing and new sources are 
necessary to ensure all affected sources in the cyanide chemicals 
manufacturing source category are subject to MACT standards, and that 
the requirements for waste management units upstream of an open or 
closed biological treatment process for new sources are necessary to 
ensure demonstrable compliance measures are in place for these sources. 
More information concerning the amendments we are finalizing is in the 
preamble to the proposed rule and in our specific responses to the 
comments above (section V.D.3). Therefore, we are finalizing the 
wastewater amendments as proposed, with minor clarifications (see 
section V.D.3.b-e).

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

    A summary of cost, environmental, and economic impacts is presented 
in section VI.A for the Carbon Black Production NESHAP and section VI.B 
for Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP final rule amendments.

A. Carbon Black Production

1. What are the affected facilities?
    The EPA estimates that there are 15 production facilities in the 
Carbon Black Production major source category that are subject to the 
Carbon Black Production NESHAP and affected by the final amendments to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart YY. The basis of our estimates of affected 
facilities is provided in the memorandum, Identification of Major 
Sources for the Carbon Black Production NESHAP, which is available in 
the docket for this action (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505-
0022). We are not currently aware of any planned or potential new or 
reconstructed carbon black production facilities in the source 
category. No carbon black production area sources were identified; 
therefore, there are no area sources subject to this rulemaking.
2. What are the air quality impacts?
    While we are broadening the scope of the current Carbon Black 
Production standard, setting annual tune-up requirements for process 
heaters and boilers, removing the SSM exemption, and establishing a 
work practice standard for periods of startup and shutdown, we do not 
have data to determine quantitatively the reduction in HAP emissions 
resulting from this action. Through discussions with industry members, 
it is our understanding that process vents located after the MUF are 
likely already below the applicability threshold where additional 
controls will be required. The other requirements we are adding are 
based on current industry practices. For this reason, we do not 
anticipate that this action will result in significant HAP emission 
reductions.

[[Page 66117]]

3. What are the cost impacts?
    Costs were developed on a per facility basis for Carbon Black 
Production facilities, and all facilities were determined to have 
similar costs. Costs are presented in 2019 dollars. Costs were broken 
into three separate categories based on final requirements: Initial 
Applicability Test, Performance Test, and Boiler/Process Heater 
Maintenance Costs.
    Initial applicability testing costs include costs associated with 
the final requirements for process vents located after the MUF to meet 
the standard, which will require facilities to determine whether 
emissions control is needed for process vents after the MUF process 
vent. We estimate this to be a one-time cost of $21,350 per facility, 
due to the assumption that the majority of HAP is removed and 
controlled at the MUF, which likely results in the vent stream 
concentration located after the MUF falling below the HAP applicability 
concentration threshold (260 ppmv).
    Performance test costs include costs associated with the 
requirement to conduct emissions tests at the subject process vents 
every 5 years starting in the first year after promulgation. Based on 
our understanding of industry practices and emissions profiles, we do 
not expect any process vents located after the MUF to exceed the 
applicability threshold, which would require them to conduct 
performance tests. Facilities must conduct performance tests no more 
than 60 months after the preceding test when demonstrating compliance 
with process vent emission control requirements. We estimate that 20 
percent of subject facilities will conduct a performance test each year 
resulting in an annual cost of $15,241 per facility.
    Boiler/process heater maintenance costs include costs associated 
with the final requirement to ensure that boilers and process heaters 
are operating at peak efficiency and not creating excess emissions 
through inefficient operation. Initial tune-up costs are assumed to be 
higher to get the units back to peak efficiency. We assume that 
subsequent year costs would be lower because less maintenance would be 
needed. As such, we estimate the initial tune-up cost to be $6,750 per 
facility and subsequent annual tune-ups to cost $1,350 per facility.
    Costs were based primarily on labor, equipment, and travel costs. 
Labor costs are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data for relevant 
employees necessary to perform the tests and maintenance. A detailed 
cost analysis can be found in the memorandum, Carbon Black Cost 
Memorandum, available in the docket for this action (see Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505-0007).
4. 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 associated with the final 
requirements 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. Economic costs to carbon black producers were 
measured in Present Value (PV) total costs and Equivalent Annual Value 
(EAV) costs. All producer facilities were estimated to have similar 
costs. All costs are presented in 2019 dollars. Refer to the 
memorandum, Carbon Black Economic Impact Analysis, in the docket for 
this rulemaking for more information (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2020-0505-0008). PV total costs and EAV costs were measured at the 3-
percent and 7-percent discount rate. The duration of analysis was 10 
years which represented two full cycles of cost analysis for the final 
requirements. Per facility PV total costs were estimated to be $70,000 
and $63,000 at the 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates, 
respectively. EAV costs per facility were estimated to be $8,000 and 
$9,000 at the 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates, respectively. The 
combined PV total cost of the final requirements for all facilities was 
estimated to be $1,005,000 and $945,000 at the 3-percent and 7-percent 
discount rates, respectively. The combined EAV cost of the final 
requirements for all facilities was estimated to be $118,000 and 
$135,000 at the 3-percent and 7- percent discount rates, respectively. 
No carbon black production facilities subject to this rule are small 
businesses based on Small Business Administration standards. Because 
the PV and EAV costs associated with the final revisions are minimal, 
no significant economic impacts from the final amendments are 
anticipated. Refer to the Carbon Black Economic Impact Memorandum, 
available in the docket (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505-0008), 
for more information.
5. What are the benefits?
    As discussed in section VI.A.2 of this preamble, we do not 
anticipate the finalized amendments to the Carbon Black Production 
source category to significantly impact air quality. The electronic 
submittal of the reports addressed in this rulemaking will increase the 
usefulness of the data contained in those reports; is in keeping with 
current trends in data availability and transparency; will further 
assist in the protection of public health and the environment; will 
improve compliance by facilitating the ability of regulated facilities 
to demonstrate compliance with requirements; will improve compliance by 
facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, tribal, and 
territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and determine 
compliance; and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated facilities, 
delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting also 
eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and 
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing 
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the 
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public.
    Although the EPA does not anticipate any significant reductions in 
HAP emissions as a result of the final amendments to the Carbon Black 
Production NESHAP, we believe that the final action will result in 
improvements to the rule by broadening the current emission limit, 
requiring an annual tune-up for boilers and process heaters, and 
revising the SSM standards such that a standard applies at all times, 
including periods covered by the final work practice standard. 
Additionally, the final amendments requiring electronic submittal of 
NOCS reports, performance test results, and periodic reports will 
increase the usefulness of the data, are in keeping with current trends 
of data availability, will further assist in the protection of public 
health and the environment, and will ultimately result in reduced 
reporting burden on the regulated community.
6. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    Executive Order 12898 directs the EPA staff to identify the 
populations of concern who are most likely to experience unequal 
burdens from environmental harms; specifically, minority populations, 
low-income populations, and indigenous peoples (59 FR 7629, February 
16, 1994). Additionally, Executive Order 13985 was signed to advance 
racial equity and support underserved communities through federal 
government actions (86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021). The EPA defines 
environmental justice (EJ) as the fair treatment and meaningful 
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, 
or income

[[Page 66118]]

with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of 
environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The EPA further defines 
the term fair treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a 
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including 
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of 
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and 
policies'' (https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice). In recognizing 
that minority and low-income populations often bear an unequal burden 
of environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues to consider ways of 
protecting them from adverse public health and environmental effects of 
air pollution.
    To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated 
with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis, which is 
an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the 
populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the facilities. In 
the analysis, we also evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer 
and noncancer risks from the Carbon Black Production major source 
category across different demographic groups within the populations 
living near facilities. The demographic analysis and the risk analysis 
are contained in the docket and were summarized in the proposed rule 
preamble.
    When examining the risk levels of those exposed to emissions from 
carbon black production facilities, we find that no one is exposed to a 
cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer TOSHI 
greater than 1.
    Results of the demographic analysis indicate that, of the total 
population residing within 5km of facilities in the source category, 
the percentages of people who are African American, age greater than or 
equal to 65, age greater than or equal to 25 years of age without a 
high school diploma, and below the poverty level are greater than the 
national average percentages of people in those demographic groups. The 
EPA also provided demographic results for populations residing within 
50km.
    Based on analyses of exposed populations, the EPA determined that 
this action is unlikely to pose a disproportionately high adverse 
health impact on minority populations and/or low-income populations, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) and 
referenced in Executive Order 13985 (86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021).
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis 
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Carbon Black 
Production Source Category Operations, available in the docket for the 
Carbon Black Production source category NESHAP (see Docket Item No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505-0014).
7. 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 assessment are documented in 
the risk report, Residual Risk Assessment for the Carbon Black 
Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 
2021 Final Rule, available in the docket for the Carbon Black 
Production source category NESHAP (see Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-
0505).

B. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing

1. What are the affected facilities?
    There are 13 cyanide chemicals manufacturing facilities currently 
operating as major sources of HAP subject to the final amendments. A 
list of facilities that are currently subject to the MACT standards is 
available in the memorandum titled Technical Support Document for the 
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP Residual Risk and Technology 
Review Proposal, available in the docket for this action (see Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532-0025).
2. What are the air quality impacts?
    The final amendments add wastewater requirements to the Cyanide 
Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP, however the EPA does not anticipate 
that the amendments to the cyanide chemicals manufacturing NESHAP will 
impact air quality. We are not proposing changes to the standard that 
will result in additional emission reductions beyond the levels already 
achieved by the NESHAP.
3. What are the cost impacts?
    The final amendments will have a limited cost impact on affected 
cyanide chemicals manufacturing facilities. Total estimated costs are 
$47,527, based on a $3,656 per facility cost for all 13 facilities. The 
costs result from reading and understanding rule requirements and 
adjusting compliance plans based on the rule proposal. All costs other 
than wastewater testing are one-time expenses expected to occur in the 
first year after the rule is finalized. Costs are based on Agency 
knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, related Information 
Collection Requests (ICRs), and Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
4. What are the economic impacts for Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing?
    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 associated with the final 
requirements and the distribution of these costs among affected 
facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in 
response to a rule.
    Economic costs to owners of Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing 
facilities were measured in PV total costs and EAV costs. All Cyanide 
Chemicals Manufacturing facilities were estimated to have similar 
costs. All costs are presented in 2019 dollars.
    PV total costs and EAV costs were measured at the 3 percent and 7 
percent discount rates. The duration of analysis was 8 years. Per 
facility PV total cost estimate is $3,968 at 3 percent and $3,925 at 7 
percent discount rates. EAV costs per facility are measured to be $565 
and $657 at the 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates, respectively. 
Combined total PV cost of the final requirements for all facilities is 
measured to be $51,577 at 3 percent and $51,030 at 7 percent discount 
rates. Combined EAV costs of the final requirements for all facilities 
are measured to be $7,346 and $8,546 at the 3 percent and 7 percent 
discount rates, respectively.
    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), we performed 
an analysis to determine if any small entities would be unduly burdened 
by the final amendments. No cyanide chemicals manufacturers are small 
businesses based on Small Business Administration standards. No 
significant economic impacts from the final amendments are anticipated 
because the PV and EAV costs associated with the final revisions are 
minimal.
5. What are the benefits?
    As discussed in section VI.B.2 of this preamble, we do not 
anticipate the finalized amendments to the NESHAP for the Cyanide 
Chemicals Manufacturing source category to

[[Page 66119]]

impact air quality. The electronic submittal of the reports addressed 
in this rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained 
in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data 
availability and transparency, will further assist in the protection of 
public health and the environment, will improve compliance by 
facilitating the ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate 
compliance with requirements and, by facilitating the ability of 
delegated state, local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the 
EPA to assess and determine compliance, will ultimately reduce burden 
on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. 
Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, 
thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating 
redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data 
quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the 
EPA, and the public.
6. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs 
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by 
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying 
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations. Additionally, Executive Order 13985 
was signed to advance racial equity and support underserved communities 
through federal government actions (86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021). The 
EPA defines EJ as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all 
people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with 
respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of 
environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The EPA further defines 
the term fair treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a 
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including 
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of 
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and 
policies'' (https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice). In recognizing 
that minority and low-income populations often bear an unequal burden 
of environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues to consider ways of 
protecting them from adverse public health and environmental effects of 
air pollution.
    To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated 
with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis, which is 
an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the 
populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the facilities. In 
the analysis, we also evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer 
and noncancer risks from the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing major 
source category across different demographic groups within the 
populations living near facilities. The demographic analysis and the 
risk analysis are contained in the docket and were summarized in the 
proposed rule preamble.
    When examining the risk levels of those exposed to emissions from 
cyanide chemical manufacturing facilities, we find that 61,653 people 
nationwide are exposed to an incremental cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 
million with no one exposed to an excess cancer risk greater than 5-in-
1 million based upon actual or allowable emissions. Also, no people are 
exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1.
    Results of the demographic analysis indicate that of the 61,653 
people residing within 50 km of facilities in the source category whose 
risk is at or above 1-in-1 million (but less than 5-in-1 million) as a 
result of emissions from the source category, the percent of 
individuals in three demographic groups, African American, below 
poverty level, and greater than or equal to 25 years of age without a 
high school diploma, are greater than the corresponding national 
average percentage of people in those demographic groups. Specifically, 
the population with risks greater than 1-in-1 million live in areas 
where 19 percent of the population is African American compared to 12 
percent nationally, 23 percent are below the poverty level \15\ 
compared to 14 percent nationally, and 16 percent are greater than or 
equal to 25 years of age without a high school diploma compared to 14 
percent nationally. Because the final amendments to the rule are not 
anticipated to result in emissions reductions, implementation of the 
final rule will not result in a significant increase or decrease in any 
existing risk disparities for the demographic groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Table 2 of the proposed rule preamble erroneously listed 
this percentage as 16 percent rather than 23 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the analyses of exposed populations described above, the 
EPA determined that this action is unlikely to pose a 
disproportionately high and adverse health impact on minority 
populations and/or low-income populations, as specified in Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) and referenced in Executive 
Order 13985 (86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021).
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis 
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing Source Category Operations, available in the docket for 
this action; (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532-0006).
7. 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 assessment are documented in 
the risk report, Residual Risk Assessment for the Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology 
Review 2021 Final Rule, available in the docket for the Cyanide 
Chemicals Manufacturing source category rule (see Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2020-0532).

VII. 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 OMB for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    Section VII.B.1 presents PRA considerations related to the Carbon 
Black Production NESHAP, and section VII.B.2 presents the PRA 
considerations related to the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP.
1. Carbon Black Production
    The information collection activities in the final rule for the 
Carbon Black Production source category have been submitted for 
approval to the OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA 
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2677.02. A copy of the ICR is 
available in the docket for the

[[Page 66120]]

Carbon Black Production source category NESHAP (see Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2020-0505), and is briefly summarized here. We are finalizing 
changes to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with 
40 CFR part 63, subpart YY, in the form of eliminating the SSM plan and 
reporting requirements; broadening the initial emission limit to 
include process vents located after the MUF; and including the 
requirement for electronic submittal of reports. In addition, the 
number of facilities subject to the standards changed. The number of 
respondents was reduced from 18 to 15 based on consultation with 
industry representatives and state and local agencies.
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are owners and operators of carbon black 
production facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart YY).
    Estimated number of respondents: 15 facilities.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending 
on the burden item. Responses include one-time review of rule 
amendments, reports of periodic performance tests, and semiannual 
compliance reports.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting 
burden for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements 
in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to 
be 289 hours (per year). The average annual burden to the Agency over 
the 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to be 213 hours 
(per year) for the Agency. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost 
for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the 
NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be 
$180,928 (per year). There are no estimated capital and operation and 
maintenance costs. The total average annual Agency cost over the first 
3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to be $10,247. An 
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB 
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the 
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to 
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection 
activities in this final rule.
2. Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
    The information collection activities in the final rule have been 
submitted to the OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA 
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2678.02. A copy of the ICR is 
available in the docket for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source 
category NESHAP (see Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532), and is briefly 
summarized here.
    The EPA is finalizing amendments that revise provisions pertaining 
to emissions during periods of SSM, add requirements for electronic 
reporting of NOCS, periodic reports, and performance test results, and 
make other minor clarifications and corrections. This information will 
be collected to assure compliance with the Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing NESHAP. The ICR burdens for these final amendments are 
summarized below.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of cyanide 
chemicals manufacturing facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart YY).
    Estimated number of respondents: 13 (assumes no new respondents 
over the next 3 years).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and annually.
    Total estimated burden: 169 hours (per year) to comply with all of 
the requirements in the NESHAP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $17,108 (per year). Includes total capital 
costs of $1,300 incurred in the first year ($433 per year over 3 years) 
for process wastewater stream sampling to determine applicability and 
compliance with the final rule amendments. There are no annualized 
operation and maintenance costs to comply with under the final 
amendments to the NESHAP.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB 
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the 
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to 
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection 
activities in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action will not impose any requirements on small entities, since there 
are no small entities in the affected source categories.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. None of the carbon black production or cyanide 
chemicals manufacturing production facilities that have been identified 
as being affected by this proposed action are owned or operated by 
tribal governments. However, we determined that one carbon black 
facility and two cyanide facilities are located within 50 miles of 
tribal lands. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Coordination and 
Consultation with Indian Tribes, the EPA offered tribal leadership the 
opportunity for government-to-government consultation with no response. 
In addition, the EPA held multiple outreach activities that included a 
webinar and participation on tribal partnership calls.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA 
does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks 
addressed by this action

[[Page 66121]]

present a disproportionate risk to children.
    The health and risk assessments for the Carbon Black Production and 
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source categories are discussed in 
sections IV.A and V.A of this preamble. The document, Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Carbon Black Production Source Category in Support 
of the Risk and Technology Review 2021 Final Rule, is available in the 
docket for the Carbon Black Production source category (see Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505). The document, Residual Risk Assessment for 
the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 
Risk and Technology Review 2021 Final Rule, is available in the docket 
for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing source category (see Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532).

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 
Part 51

    This action does not involve technical standards for the Carbon 
Black Production source category.
    This action does involve technical standards for the Cyanide 
Chemicals Manufacturing source category. Therefore, the EPA conducted a 
search to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards 
(VCS). However, the Agency identified no such standards. A thorough 
summary of the search and results are included in the memorandum titled 
Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review, which is available 
in the docket for this action/source category (see Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2020-0532-0004).
    In the final rule, the EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS 
ASTM D4282-15, Standard Test Method for Determination of Free Cyanide 
in Water and Wastewater by Microdiffusion and ASTM D7237-18, Standard 
Test Method for Free Cyanide and Aquatic Free Cyanide with Flow 
Injection Analysis (FIA) Utilizing Gas Diffusion Separation and 
Amperometric Detection. Both methods are water and wastewater methods 
for the determination of free cyanide. In ASTM D4282-15, the reactions 
are carried out in a microdiffusion cell. The sample is treated with 
cadmium ion to precipitate hexacyanoferrates and buffered to pH 6. The 
HCN then diffuses into a sodium hydroxide solution which is 
subsequently treated, and the concentration of free cyanide determined 
by spectrophotometric analysis. In ASTM-7237-18, the sample is 
introduced into the carrier solution of the flow injection analysis 
system with a phosphate buffer solution at pH 6. The released hydrogen 
cyanide gas diffuses through a hydrophobic gas diffusion membrane into 
an alkaline receptor stream where the cyanide ion is captured and sent 
to an amperometric flowcell detector with a silver-working electrode. 
In the presence of cyanide, silver in the working electrode is oxidized 
at the applied potential. The anodic current measured if proportional 
to the concentration of cyanide in the sample. These methods are 
reasonably available from ASTM at https://www.astm.org or 1100 Barr 
Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, telephone number: (610) 
832-9500, fax number: (610) 832-9555 email: [email protected].

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

    The EPA believes that this final action for both the Carbon Black 
Production source category and the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing 
source category does not have disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income 
populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 
12898.
    The documentation for this decision for the Carbon Black Production 
source category is contained in the technical report, Risk and 
Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations 
Living Near Carbon Black Production Facilities, available in the docket 
for this action (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505-0014) and 
discussed in Section VI.A.6 of this final rule.
    The documentation for this decision for the Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing is contained in the technical report, Risk and Technology 
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near 
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Facilities, available in the docket for 
this action (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0532-0006) and discussed 
in Section VI.B.6 of this final rule.
    The EPA provided opportunities to engage with the EPA on these 
proposals. The Agency offered a public hearing and also reached out to 
communities in other ways, including a webinar held on February 10, 
2021, to exchange information with stakeholders about these proposals. 
We did not receive any requests for a public hearing and we did not 
receive feedback regarding EJ during the webinar. The EPA remains 
committed to engaging with communities and stakeholders throughout the 
development of air pollution regulations.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report for this action to each House of the Congress and to the 
Comptroller General of the United States. Neither of the NESHAP amended 
by this action constitute a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency is amending part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of the 
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

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

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(105) through (h)(117) as (h)(107) 
through (h)(119);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(63) through (h)(104) as (h)(64) through 
(h)(105);
0
c. Adding new paragraphs (h)(63) and (h)(106);
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (63) ASTM D4282-15, Standard Test Method for Determination of Free 
Cyanide in Water and Wastewater by

[[Page 66122]]

Microdiffusion, Approved July 15, 2015, IBR approved for Sec.  
63.1103(g).
* * * * *
    (106) ASTM D7237-18, Standard Test Method for Free Cyanide and 
Aquatic Free Cyanide with Flow Injection Analysis (FIA) Utilizing Gas 
Diffusion Separation and Amperometric Detection, Approved December 1, 
2018, IBR approved for Sec.  63.1103(g).
* * * * *

Subpart YY--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable 
Control Technology Standards

0
3. Section 63.1101 is amended by revising the definition for ``Process 
vent'' to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1101  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Process vent means the point of discharge to the atmosphere (or the 
point of entry into a control device, if any) of a gas stream from a 
unit operation within a source category subject to this subpart. 
Process vent excludes the following gas stream discharges:
    (1) Relief valve discharges;
    (2) Leaks from equipment subject to this subpart;
    (3) Gas streams exiting a control device complying with this 
subpart;
    (4) Gas streams transferred to other processes (on-site or off-
site) for reaction or other use in another process (i.e., for chemical 
value as a product, isolated intermediate, byproduct, or co-product for 
heat value);
    (5) Gas streams transferred for fuel value (i.e., net positive 
heating value), use, reuse, or sale for fuel value, use, or reuse. On 
or after November 19, 2021 this exclusion no longer applies to the 
Carbon Black Production source category;
    (6) Gas streams from storage vessels or transfer racks subject to 
this subpart;
    (7) Gas streams from waste management units subject to this 
subpart;
    (8) Gas streams from wastewater streams subject to this subpart;
    (9) Gas streams exiting process analyzers; and
    (10) Gas stream discharges that contain less than or equal to 0.005 
weight-percent total organic HAP.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.1102 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 
text and adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1102  Compliance schedule.

    (a) General requirements. Affected sources, as defined in Sec.  
63.1103(a)(1)(i) for acetyl resins production, Sec.  63.1103(b)(1)(i) 
for acrylic and modacrylic fiber production, Sec.  63.1103(c)(1)(i) for 
hydrogen fluoride production, Sec.  63.1103(d)(1)(i) for polycarbonate 
production, Sec.  63.1103(e)(1)(i) for ethylene production, Sec.  
63.1103(f)(1)(i) for carbon black production, Sec.  63.1103(g)(1)(i) 
for cyanide chemicals manufacturing, or Sec.  63.1103(h)(1)(i) for 
spandex production shall comply with the appropriate provisions of this 
subpart and the subparts referenced by this subpart YY according to the 
schedule in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, as appropriate, 
except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. Affected sources 
in ethylene production also must comply according to paragraph (c) of 
this section. Affected sources in cyanide chemicals manufacturing also 
must comply according to paragraph (d) of this section. Affected 
sources in carbon black production also must comply according to 
paragraph (e) of this section. Proposal and effective dates are 
specified in table 1 to this section and in paragraph (d) for cyanide 
chemicals manufacturing affected sources and paragraph (e) for carbon 
black production affected sources of this section.
* * * * *
    (d) Cyanide chemicals manufacturing. (1) If applicable, all cyanide 
chemicals manufacturing affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or before January 15, 2021, must be in compliance 
with the requirements listed in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 
section upon initial startup or November 20, 2022, whichever is later. 
If applicable, all cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected sources 
that commenced construction or reconstruction after January 15, 2021, 
must be in compliance with the requirements listed in paragraphs 
(d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section upon initial startup, or November 
19, 2021, whichever is later.
    (i) Requirements specified in Table 9 to Sec.  63.1103(g), table 
entry (f)(1)(ii), for new cyanide chemicals manufacturing process units 
that generate process wastewater.
    (ii) Requirements specified in Table 9 to Sec.  63.1103(g), table 
entry (g), for existing cyanide chemicals manufacturing process units 
that generate process wastewater.
    (2) All cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before January 15, 2021, 
must be in compliance with the requirements listed in paragraphs 
(d)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section upon initial startup or May 18, 
2022, whichever is later. All cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected 
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after January 15, 
2021, must be in compliance with the requirements listed in paragraphs 
(d)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section upon initial startup, or 
November 19, 2021, whichever is later.
    (i) The exceptions specified in Sec.  63.1103(g)(6) related to 40 
part 63, subparts SS, TT, and UU startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
requirements.
    (ii) The compliance requirements specified in Sec.  
63.1108(a)(4)(i), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2), and (b)(4)(ii)(B).
    (iii) The electronic reporting requirements specified in Sec.  
63.1110(a)(10).
    (e) Carbon black production. (1) If applicable, all carbon black 
production affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or before January 14, 2021, must be in compliance 
with the requirements listed in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iii) of 
this section upon initial startup or November 20, 2022, whichever is 
later. If applicable, all carbon black production affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction after January 14, 2021, must 
be in compliance with the requirements listed in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) 
through (iii) of this section upon initial startup, or November 19, 
2021, whichever is later.
    (i) The process vent applicability determination requirements 
specified in Sec.  63.1103(f)(3)(iv).
    (ii) The performance test frequency requirements specified in Sec.  
63.1108(b)(4)(ii).
    (iii) The boiler and process heater tune up requirements specified 
in Sec.  63.1103(f)(3)(iii).
    (2) All carbon black production affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction on or before January 14, 2021, must be 
in compliance with the requirements listed in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) 
through (iv) of this section upon initial startup or May 18, 2022, 
whichever is later. All carbon black production affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction after January 14, 2021, must 
be in compliance with the requirements listed in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) 
through (iv) of this section upon initial startup, or November 19, 
2021, whichever is later.

[[Page 66123]]

    (i) The exceptions specified in Sec.  63.1103(f)(4) related to 40 
part 63, subpart SS, startup, shutdown, and malfunction requirements.
    (ii) The exception specified in Sec.  63.1103(f)(5) related to the 
requirement that a closed vent system route the collected vapors to a 
control device when demonstrating compliance.
    (iii) The compliance requirements specified in Sec.  
63.1108(a)(4)(i), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2), and (b)(4)(ii)(B).
    (iv) The electronic reporting requirements specified in Sec.  
63.1110(a)(10).
    (3) All carbon black production affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction on or before January 14, 2021, must be 
in compliance with the requirements specified in line entry (b) in 
Table 8 to Sec.  63.1103(f) on or before November 19, 2024. All carbon 
black production affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after January 14, 2021, must be in compliance with the 
requirements specified in line entries (b) and (c) in Table 8 to Sec.  
63.1103(f) upon initial startup or November 19, 2021, whichever is 
later.

0
5. Section 63.1103 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (f)(3)(i) and adding paragraphs (f)(3)(iii) 
through (v).
0
b. Adding entries (b) and (c) to table 8 to Sec.  63.1103(f).
0
c. Adding paragraphs (f)(4) and (5).
0
d. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(ii).
0
e. In paragraph (g)(2) adding the definition for ``free cyanide'' in 
alphabetical order.
0
f. Revising paragraph (g)(3).
0
g. Adding paragraph (g)(5)(vi).
0
h. Adding paragraph (g)(6).
0
i. In table 9 to Sec.  63.1103(g), revising entries (f) through (i) and 
adding entry (j).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1103  Source category-specific applicability, definitions, and 
requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Table 8 to this section specifies the carbon black production 
standards applicability for existing and new sources. Applicability 
assessment procedures and methods are specified in Sec.  63.1104. An 
owner or operator of an affected source is not required to perform 
applicability tests or other applicability assessment procedures if 
they opt to comply with the most stringent requirements for an 
applicable emission point pursuant to this subpart. General compliance, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are specified in Sec. Sec.  
63.1108 through 63.1112. Before May 18, 2022, minimization of emissions 
from startup, shutdown, and malfunctions must be addressed in the 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan required by Sec.  63.1111; the 
plan must also establish reporting and recordkeeping of such events. A 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required on and after 
May 18, 2022 and the requirements specified in Sec.  63.1111 no longer 
apply; however, for historical compliance purposes, a copy of the plan 
must be retained and available on-site for 5 years after May 18, 2022. 
Procedures for approval of alternative means of emission limitations 
are specified in Sec.  63.1113.
* * * * *
    (iii) The boiler and process heater tune up requirements of 
paragraphs (f)(3)(iii)(A) through (F) of this section apply beginning 
no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.1102(e) for 
carbon black production affected sources and as specified in Table 8 to 
Sec.  63.1103(f), line entry (c).
    (A) Inspect the combustion device for damage, wear, and buildup of 
material that could impact effectiveness, and clean or replace any 
components of the burner as necessary. Units that produce electricity 
for sale may delay the combustion device inspection until the first 
outage after the annual inspection is required, not to exceed 36 months 
from the previous inspection. At units where entry into a piece of 
process equipment or into a storage vessel is required to complete the 
tune-up inspections, inspections are required only during planned 
entries into the storage vessel or process equipment;
    (B) When possible based upon the configuration of the burner, 
inspect the flame pattern and adjust the burner if needed to optimize 
the flame pattern. If manufacturer's specifications for an optimized 
flame pattern are available, the adjustment should be consistent with 
the manufacturer's specifications;
    (C) Inspect the system controlling the air-to-fuel ratio, and 
ensure that it is functioning properly. For any calibrated components 
ensure that it is correctly calibrated The annual inspection may be 
delayed until the next scheduled unit shutdown. Units that produce 
electricity for sale may delay the inspection until the first outage 
after the annual inspection is required, not to exceed 36 months from 
the previous inspection;
    (D) Optimize total emissions of CO. If manufacturer's 
specifications for optimization are available, this optimization should 
be consistent with the manufacturer's specifications and with any 
NOX requirement to which the unit is subject. If no 
manufacturer's specifications are available, the inspection and 
cleaning procedures of paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(A) fulfill the obligations 
of this paragraph;
    (E) Measure the concentrations in the effluent stream of CO in 
parts per million, by volume, and oxygen in volume percent, before and 
after the adjustments are made. Measurements may be taken using a 
portable CO analyzer and may be either on a dry or wet basis, as long 
as it is the same basis before and after the adjustments are made. If 
adjustments are not or cannot be made, make the measurements before and 
after the inspection and cleaning procedures specified in paragraph 
(f)(3)(iii)(A); and
    (F) Maintain on-site and submit, if requested by the Administrator, 
a report containing the information in paragraphs (f)(3)(iii)(F)(1) 
through (3) of this section,
    (1) The concentrations of CO in the effluent stream in parts per 
million by volume, and oxygen in volume percent, measured at high fire 
or typical operating load, before and after the tune-up of the boiler 
or process heater;
    (2) A description of any corrective actions taken as a part of the 
tune-up; and
    (3) The type and amount of fuel used over the 12 months prior to 
the tune-up, but only if the unit was physically and legally capable of 
using more than one type of fuel during that period. Units sharing a 
fuel meter may estimate the fuel used by each unit.
    (iv) When determining the applicability of the carbon black 
production process vent requirements specified in line entry (b) to 
Table 8 to Sec.  63.1103(f), an owner or operator is required to 
determine the HAP concentration of the process vent streams, at a 
minimum, as specified in paragraphs (f)(3)(iv)(A) through (D) of this 
section.
    (A) As an alternative to testing all carbon black production 
process carbon black or product vent streams after the main unit filter 
to determine applicability, an owner or operator has the option of 
testing the first carbon black production process or product vent 
stream after the main unit filter. If the concentration of the emission 
stream is less than 260 parts per million by volume as determined by 
the process vent applicability determination requirements specified in 
Sec.  63.1103(f)(3)(iv), then all process vents after the main unit 
filter and before the dryer are deemed to be in compliance and are not 
subject to the emission limits in Table 8 below.
    (B) As an alternative to testing all carbon black production 
process carbon

[[Page 66124]]

black or product vent streams after the dryer to determine 
applicability, an owner or operator has the option of testing the first 
carbon black production process carbon black or product vent stream 
after the dryer. If the concentration of the emission stream is less 
than 260 parts per million by volume as determined by the process vent 
applicability determination requirements specified in Sec.  
63.1103(f)(3)(iv), then all process vents after the dryer are deemed to 
be in compliance and are not subject to the emission limits in Table 8 
below.
    (C) Report the results of the applicability assessment according to 
paragraph Sec.  63.1110(a)(10)(i).
    (D) A test meeting the requirements of Sec.  63.1104(e) conducted 
after November 18, 2016 and where no process changes have occurred 
since the test that may affect emissions, may be submitted according to 
Sec.  63.1110(a)(10)(i)(A) through (C) in lieu of performing a new 
applicability determination.
    (v) When determining the applicability of the carbon black 
production main unit filter process vent requirements specified in line 
entry (a) to Table 8 to Sec.  63.1103(f), an owner or operator is 
required to determine the HAP concentration of the main unit filter 
process vent streams. Beginning November 19, 2021, report the results 
of any applicability assessment conducted after November 19, 2021, the 
applicability assessment according to paragraph Sec.  
63.1110(a)(10)(i).

Table 8 to Sec.   63.1103(f)--What Are My Requirements if I Own or Operate a Carbon Black Production Existing or
                                              New Affected Source?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If you own or operate . . .                   And if . . .                       Then you must . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
(b) A carbon black production        (1) The HAP concentration of the       Beginning no later than the
 process vent not subject to line     emission stream is equal to or         compliance dates specified in Sec.
 entry (a) of this table.             greater than 260 parts per million      63.1102(e):
                                      by volume \a\ as determined by the    (i) Reduce emissions of HAP by using
                                      process vent applicability             a flare meeting the requirements of
                                      determination requirements specified   subpart SS of this part; or
                                      in Sec.   63.1103(f)(3)(iv).          (ii) Reduce emissions of total HAP
                                                                             by 98 weight-percent or to a
                                                                             concentration of 20 parts per
                                                                             million by volume, whichever is
                                                                             less stringent, by venting
                                                                             emissions through a closed vent
                                                                             system to any combination of
                                                                             control devices meeting the
                                                                             requirements of Sec.
                                                                             63.982(a)(2).
(c) A carbon black production        (1) The process vent complies by       (i) Beginning no later than the
 process vent subject to (a) or (b)   routing emissions to a boiler/         compliance dates specified in Sec.
 above.                               process heater for use as fuel gas.     63.1102(e), conduct annual tune up
                                                                             requirements as specified in Sec.
                                                                             63.1103(f)(3)(iii) of this subpart.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The weight-percent organic HAP is determined according to the procedures specified in Sec.   63.1104(e).

* * * * *
    (4) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.1102(e), the referenced provisions specified in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) 
through (xiii) of this section do not apply when demonstrating 
compliance with paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
    (i) The phrase ``except during periods of start-up, shutdown and 
malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart'' in Sec.  
63.984(a) of subpart SS(equipment and operating requirements for fuel 
gas systems and processes requirements).
    (ii) The phrase ``except during periods of start-up, shutdown and 
malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart'' in Sec.  
63.985(a) of subpart SS (nonflare control device equipment and 
operating requirements).
    (iii) The phrase ``other than start-ups, shutdowns, or 
malfunctions'' in Sec.  63.994(c)(1)(ii)(D) of subpart SS (halogen 
scrubber and other halogen reduction device monitoring requirements).
    (iv) Section 63.996(c)(2)(ii) of subpart SS (operation and 
maintenance of continuous parameter monitoring systems) ``(ii) If under 
the referencing subpart, an owner or operator has developed a start-up, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the plan is followed, and the CPMS is 
repaired immediately, this action shall be recorded as specified in 
Sec.  63.998(c)(1)(ii)(E).''
    (v) The last sentence of Sec.  63.997(e)(1)(i) (performance test 
procedures) of subpart SS (general procedures for continuous unit 
operations): ``Operations during periods of start-up, shutdown, and 
malfunction shall not constitute representative conditions for the 
purpose of a performance test.''
    (vi) Section 63.998(b)(2)(iii) (excluded data) of subpart SS: 
``(iii) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions, if the owner or operator 
operates the source during such periods in accordance with Sec.  
63.1111(a) and maintains the records specified in paragraph (d)(3) of 
this section.''
    (vii) The phrase ``other than periods of startups, shutdowns, and 
malfunctions'' from Sec.  63.998(b)(5)(i)(A) (alternative 
recordkeeping) of subpart SS.
    (viii) The phrase ``other than a start-up, shutdown, or 
malfunction'' from Sec.  63.998(b)(5)(i)(B)(3) (alternate 
recordkeeping) of subpart SS.
    (ix) The phrase ``other than periods of startups, shutdowns, and 
malfunctions'' from Sec.  63.998(b)(5)(i)(C) (alternate recordkeeping) 
of subpart SS.
    (x) The phrase ``other than a start-up, shutdown, or malfunction'' 
from Sec.  63.998(b)(5)(ii)(C) (alternate recordkeeping) of subpart SS.
    (xi) The phrase ``except as provided in paragraphs (b)(6)(i)(A) and 
(B) of this section'' from Sec.  63.998(b)(6)(i) (alternative 
recordkeeping) of subpart SS.
    (xii) The second sentence of Sec.  63.998(b)(6)(ii) (alternative 
recordkeeping) of subpart SS. ``If a source has developed a startup, 
shutdown and malfunction plan, and a monitored parameter is outside its 
established range or monitoring data are not collected during periods 
of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction (and the source is operated 
during such periods in accordance with Sec.  63.1111(a)) or during 
periods of nonoperation of the process unit or portion thereof 
(resulting in cessation of the emissions to which monitoring applies), 
then the excursion is not a violation and, in cases where continuous 
monitoring is required, the excursion does not count as the excused 
excursion for determining compliance.''
    (xiii) Section 63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D) through (G) (nonflare control 
and

[[Page 66125]]

recovery device regulated source monitoring records) of subpart SS.
    (xiv) Section 63.998(d)(3) (regulated source and control equipment 
start-up, shutdown, and malfunction records) of subpart SS.
    (5) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.1102(e), the provisions specified in Sec.  63.983(a)(1) of subpart 
SS that each closed vent system shall be designed and operated to 
collect the regulated material vapors from the emission point shall 
apply at all times, with the following exception: The closed vent 
system to the control device may be bypassed during startup or shutdown 
of a reactor when the excess oxygen concentration in the closed vent 
system is greater than or equal to 3 percent. Startup and shutdown of a 
reactor must be completed as expeditiously as possible, and in fewer 
than 15 minutes whenever possible. In no case shall the time period 
allowed be permitted to exceed 15 minutes. The bypass of the control 
device must use one of the methods specified in paragraphs (f)(5)(i) 
through (ii):
    (i) Calculated Purge Duration Method: Each facility must calculate 
the purge duration of their closed vent system by evaluating the volume 
of the closed vent system and the flowrate of the contents of the 
closed vent system from the reactor to the common tail gas header. 
Additionally, each facility must calculate the amount of time it takes 
to open and/or close the common tail gas header and open and/or close 
the main unit filter vent to maintain constant pressure. The time 
required to completely purge the closed vent system is added to the 
time required to open and close the associated vents along with a 
safety factor that accounts for the physical and technological 
constraints of the facility, to determine the total calculated purge 
duration in minutes.
    (ii) Oxygen Sensors: Facilities may use oxygen sensors located 
within the closed vent system to determine when the oxygen level falls 
below 3 percent.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Compliance schedule. The compliance schedule for the affected 
source, as defined in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section, is specified 
in Sec.  63.1102.
    (2) * * *
    Free cyanide means chemical species of cyanide that are dissolved 
in water and are bioavailable and known for their toxic effects on 
living organisms. This refers to the sum of molecular hydrogen cyanide 
(HCN) and cyanide ion (CN\-\) dissolved in water. Included in this 
definition are the dissolved products of cyanide salts (including 
potassium cyanide [KCN] and sodium cyanide [NaCN]), as these salts 
dissociate to cyanide ion and hydrogen cyanide when added to water.
* * * * *
    (3) Requirements. Table 9 to this section specifies the cyanide 
chemicals manufacturing standards applicable to existing and new 
sources. Applicability assessment procedures and methods are specified 
in Sec.  63.1104. An owner or operator of an affected source is not 
required to perform applicability tests or other applicability 
assessment procedures if they opt to comply with the most stringent 
requirements for an applicable emission point pursuant to this subpart. 
General compliance, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are 
specified in Sec. Sec.  63.1108 through 63.1112. Before May 18, 2022, 
minimization of emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunctions must 
be addressed in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan required by 
Sec.  63.1111; the plan must also establish reporting and recordkeeping 
of such events. A startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is not 
required on and after May 18, 2022 and the requirements specified in 
Sec.  63.1111 no longer apply; however, for historical compliance 
purposes, a copy of the plan must be retained and available on-site for 
5 years after May 18, 2022. Procedures for approval of alternative 
means of emission limitations are specified in Sec.  63.1113.
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (vi) For compliance with the wastewater free cyanide analysis 
provisions of table 9 to Sec.  63.1103(g), free cyanide is to be 
measured according to ASTM D4282-15 or ASTM D7237-18 (both incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  63.14).
    (6) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction referenced provisions. 
Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.1102(d), the referenced provisions specified in paragraphs (g)(6)(i) 
through (xxiii) of this section do not apply when demonstrating 
compliance with paragraph (g)(3) of this section.
    (i) The second/last sentence of Sec.  63.983(a)(5) (requirements 
for pressure relief devices in a transfer rack's closed vent system 
requirements) of subpart SS: ``Pressure relief devices needed for 
safety purposes are not subject to this paragraph.''
    (ii) The phrase ``except during periods of start-up, shutdown and 
malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart'' in Sec.  
63.984(a) of subpart SS (equipment and operating requirements for fuel 
gas systems and processes requirements).
    (iii) The phrase ``except during periods of start-up, shutdown and 
malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart'' in Sec.  
63.985(a) of subpart SS (nonflare control device equipment and 
operating requirements).
    (iv) The phrase ``other than start-ups, shutdowns, or 
malfunctions'' in Sec.  63.994(c)(1)(ii)(D) of subpart SS (halogen 
scrubber and other halogen reduction device monitoring requirements).
    (v) Section 63.996(c)(2)(ii) of subpart SS (operation and 
maintenance of continuous parameter monitoring systems) ``(ii) If under 
the referencing subpart, an owner or operator has developed a start-up, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the plan is followed, and the CPMS is 
repaired immediately, this action shall be recorded as specified in 
Sec.  63.998(c)(1)(ii)(E).''
    (vi) The last sentence of Sec.  63.997(e)(1)(i) (performance test 
procedures) of subpart SS (general procedures for continuous unit 
operations): ``Operations during periods of start-up, shutdown, and 
malfunction shall not constitute representative conditions for the 
purpose of a performance test.''
    (vii) Section 63.998(b)(2)(iii) (excluded data) of subpart SS: 
``(iii) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions, if the owner or operator 
operates the source during such periods in accordance with Sec.  
63.1111(a) and maintains the records specified in paragraph (d)(3) of 
this section.''
    (viii) The phrase ``other than periods of startups, shutdowns, and 
malfunctions'' from Sec.  63.998(b)(5)(i)(A) (alternative 
recordkeeping) of subpart SS.
    (ix) The phrase ``other than a start-up, shutdown, or malfunction'' 
from Sec.  63.998(b)(5)(i)(B)(3) (alternate recordkeeping) of subpart 
SS.
    (x) The phrase ``other than periods of startups, shutdowns, and 
malfunctions'' from Sec.  63.998(b)(5)(i)(C) (alternate recordkeeping) 
of subpart SS.
    (xi) The phrase ``other than a start-up, shutdown, or malfunction'' 
from Sec.  63.998(b)(5)(ii)(C) (alternate recordkeeping) of subpart SS.
    (xii) The phrase ``except as provided in paragraphs (b)(6)(i)(A) 
and (B) of this section'' from Sec.  63.998(b)(6)(i) (alternative 
recordkeeping) of subpart SS.
    (xiii) The second sentence of Sec.  63.998(b)(6)(ii) (alternative 
recordkeeping) of subpart SS. ``If a source has developed a startup, 
shutdown and malfunction plan, and a monitored parameter is outside its

[[Page 66126]]

established range or monitoring data are not collected during periods 
of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (and the source is operated during 
such periods in accordance with Sec.  63.1111(a)) or during periods of 
nonoperation of the process unit or portion thereof (resulting in 
cessation of the emissions to which monitoring applies), then the 
excursion is not a violation and, in cases where continuous monitoring 
is required, the excursion does not count as the excused excursion for 
determining compliance.''
    (xiv) Section 63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D) through (G) (nonflare control and 
recovery device regulated source monitoring records) of subpart SS.
    (xv) Section 63.998(d)(3) (regulated source and control equipment 
start-up, shutdown and malfunction records) of subpart SS.
    (xvi) The phrase ``may be included as part of the startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan, as required by the referencing subpart 
for the source, or'' from Sec.  63.1005(e)(4)(i) (leak repair records 
written procedures) of subpart TT.
    (xvii) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1007(e)(1)(ii)(A) (dual mechanical seal 
system special provisions for pumps) of subpart TT.
    (xviii) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1009(e)(1)(i)(A) (dual mechanical seal 
system special provisions for agitators) of subpart TT.
    (xix) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1012(b)(1) (compressor seal system 
standard) of subpart TT.
    (xx) The phrase ``may be included as part of the startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction plan, as required by the referencing subpart for the 
source, or'' from Sec.  63.1024(f)(4)(i) (leak repair records written 
procedures) of subpart UU.
    (xxi) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1026(e)(1)(ii)(A) (dual mechanical seal 
system special provisions for pumps) of subpart UU.
    (xxii) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1028(e)(1)(i)(A) (dual mechanical seal 
system special provisions for agitators of subpart UU.
    (xxiii) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1031(b)(1) (compressor seal system 
standard) of subpart UU.

  Table 9 to Sec.   63.1103(g)--What Are My Requirements if I Own or Operate a Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
                                        Existing or New Affected Source?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If you own or operate . . .                   And if . . .                       Then you must . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
(f) A new cyanide chemicals          (1) The process wastewater is from     (i) Achieve a combined removal and
 manufacturing process unit that      HCN purification, ammonia              control of HAP from wastewater of
 generates process wastewater.        purification, or flare blowdown.       93 weight-percent; and
                                                                            (ii) Beginning no later than the
                                                                             compliance dates specified in Sec.
                                                                              63.1102(d), waste management units
                                                                             upstream of an open or closed
                                                                             biological treatment process shall
                                                                             meet the requirements of Sec.
                                                                             63.133 through Sec.   63.137 of
                                                                             subpart G of this part, as
                                                                             applicable.
(g) An existing cyanide chemicals    (1) The process wastewater stream is   (i) Beginning no later than the
 manufacturing process unit that      from HCN purification, ammonia         compliance dates specified in Sec.
 generates process wastewater.        purification, or flare blowdown; and.   63.1102(d), comply with the
                                     (2) the total annual average            requirements of Sec.
                                      concentration of Table 9 of 40 CFR     63.138(a)(1).
                                      part 63, subpart G compounds (Table   (ii) For compliance options and
                                      9 compounds) and free cyanide          calculations requiring an Fr value
                                      measured according to Sec.             under Sec.   63.138(a)(1); owners
                                      63.1103(g)(5)(vi) from each process    and operators may use a value of
                                      wastewater stream are greater or       0.93 for free cyanide.
                                      equal to 10,000 ppmw at any flow
                                      rate, or the total annual average
                                      concentration of Table 9 compounds
                                      and free cyanide from each process
                                      wastewater stream are greater or
                                      equal to 1,000 ppmw, and the annual
                                      average flow rate is greater or
                                      equal to 10 liters per minute,
                                      according to the procedures in Sec.
                                       63.144(a).
(h) A cyanide chemicals              (1) The maintenance wastewater         (i) Comply with the requirements of
 manufacturing process unit that      contains hydrogen cyanide or           Sec.   63.1106(b).
 generates maintenance wastewater.    acetonitrile.
(i) An item of equipment listed in   (1) The item of equipment meets the    (i) Comply with the requirements in
 Sec.   63.1106(c)(1) that            criteria specified in Sec.             Table 35 of subpart G of this part.
 transports or contains wastewater    63.1106(c)(1) through (3) and either
 liquid streams from a cyanide        (c)(4)(i) or (ii).
 chemicals manufacturing process
 unit.
(j) Equipment, as defined under      (1) The equipment contains or          (i) Comply with either subpart TT or
 Sec.   63.1101.                      contacts hydrogen cyanide and          UU of this part, and paragraph
                                      operates equal to or greater than      (g)(5) of this section, with the
                                      300 hours per year.                    exception that open-ended lines
                                                                             that contain or contact hydrogen
                                                                             cyanide are exempt from any
                                                                             requirements to install a cap,
                                                                             plug, blind flange, or second valve
                                                                             to be capped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
6. Section 63.1104 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.1104  Process vents from continuous unit operations: 
applicability assessment procedures and methods.

* * * * *
    (c) Applicability assessment requirements. The TOC or organic HAP 
concentrations, process vent volumetric flow rates, process vent 
heating values,

[[Page 66127]]

process vent TOC or organic HAP emission rates, halogenated process 
vent determinations, process vent TRE index values, and engineering 
assessments for process vent control applicability assessment 
requirements are to be determined during maximum representative 
operating conditions for the process, except as provided in paragraph 
(d) of this section, or unless the Administrator specifies or approves 
alternate operating conditions. For acrylic and modacrylic fiber 
production affected sources, carbon black production affected sources, 
cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected sources, polycarbonate 
production affected sources, and ethylene production affected sources, 
operations during periods of malfunction shall not constitute 
representative conditions for the purpose of an applicability test. For 
all other affected sources, operations during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction shall not constitute representative 
conditions for the purpose of an applicability test.
* * * * *

0
7. Section 63.1108 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and paragraph (a)(4)(i).
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2) introductory text, and 
paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1108  Compliance with standards and operation and maintenance 
requirements.

    (a) Requirements. The requirements of paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and 
(5) of this section apply to all affected sources except acrylic and 
modacrylic fiber production affected sources and polycarbonate 
production affected sources, and beginning no later than the compliance 
dates specified in Sec.  63.1102(c) for ethylene production affected 
sources, specified in Sec.  63.1102(d) for cyanide chemicals 
manufacturing affected sources, and specified in Sec.  63.1102(e) for 
carbon black production affected sources. The requirements of paragraph 
(a)(4) of this section apply only to acrylic and modacrylic fiber 
production affected sources, polycarbonate production affected sources 
and beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.1102(c) for ethylene production affected sources, specified in Sec.  
63.1102(d) for cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected sources, and 
specified in Sec.  63.1102(e) for carbon black production affected 
sources. The requirements of paragraphs (a)(3), (6), and (7) of this 
section apply to all affected sources.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) For acrylic and modacrylic fiber production affected sources 
and polycarbonate production affected sources, and beginning no later 
than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.1102(c) for ethylene 
production affected sources, specified in Sec.  63.1102(d) for cyanide 
chemicals manufacturing, and specified in Sec.  63.1102(e) for carbon 
black production affected sources, the emission limitations and 
established parameter ranges of this part shall apply at all times 
except during periods of non-operation of the affected source (or 
specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions to 
which this subpart applies. Equipment leak requirements shall apply at 
all times except during periods of non-operation of the affected source 
(or specific portion thereof) in which the lines are drained and 
depressurized resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the 
equipment leak requirements apply.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Excused excursions are not allowed for acrylic and modacrylic 
fiber production affected sources, polycarbonate production affected 
sources, and beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in 
Sec.  63.1102(c) for ethylene production affected sources, specified in 
Sec.  63.1102(d) for cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected sources, 
and specified in Sec.  63.1102(e) for carbon black production affected 
sources. For all other affected sources, including ethylene production, 
cyanide chemicals manufacturing, and carbon black production affected 
sources, prior to the compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.1102(c) 
through (e), an excused excursion, as described in Sec.  
63.998(b)(6)(ii), is not a violation.
    (2)Parameter monitoring: Excursions. An excursion is not a 
violation in cases where continuous monitoring is required and the 
excursion does not count toward the number of excused excursions (as 
described in Sec.  63.998(b)(6)(ii)), if the conditions of paragraph 
(b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section are met, except that the conditions 
of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section do not apply for acrylic and 
modacrylic fiber production affected sources, polycarbonate production 
affected sources, and beginning no later than the compliance dates 
specified in Sec.  63.1102(c) for ethylene production affected sources, 
specified in Sec.  63.1102(d) for cyanide chemicals manufacturing 
affected sources, and specified in Sec.  63.1102(e) for carbon black 
production affected sources. Nothing in this paragraph shall be 
construed to allow or excuse a monitoring parameter excursion caused by 
any activity that violates other applicable provisions of this subpart 
or a subpart referenced by this subpart.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) The Administrator may determine compliance with emission 
limitations of this subpart based on, but not limited to, the results 
of performance tests conducted according to the procedures specified in 
Sec.  63.997, unless otherwise specified in this subpart or a subpart 
referenced by this subpart. For carbon black production affected 
sources, beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in 
Sec.  63.1102(e), in addition to initial performance test requirements 
to demonstrate compliance with process vent requirements, subsequent 
performance tests are required no later than 60 months after the 
preceding performance test in accordance with the procedures specified 
in Sec.  63.997(e) for initial performance tests.
    (B) For acrylic and modacrylic fiber production affected sources, 
polycarbonate production affected sources, and beginning no later than 
the compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.1102(c) for ethylene 
production affected sources, specified in Sec.  63.1102(d) for cyanide 
chemicals manufacturing affected sources, and specified in Sec.  
63.1102(e) for carbon black production affected sources, performance 
tests shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator 
specifies to the owner or operator based on representative performance 
of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative 
conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown unless specified by 
the Administrator or an applicable subpart. The owner or operator may 
not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. The owner 
or operator must record the process information that is necessary to 
document operating conditions during the test and include in such 
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal 
operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to 
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 63.1110 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text.

[[Page 66128]]

0
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(7), (a)(10)(i) introductory text, 
(a)(10)(i)(A) through (C), and (a)(10)(ii).
0
c. Revising paragraph (d)(2).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1110  Reporting requirements.

    (a) Required reports. Each owner or operator of an affected source 
subject to this subpart shall submit the reports listed in paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (8) of this section, as applicable. Each owner or 
operator of an acrylic and modacrylic fiber production affected source 
or polycarbonate production affected source subject to this subpart 
shall also submit the reports listed in paragraph (a)(9) of this 
section in addition to the reports listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(8) of this section, as applicable. Beginning no later than the 
compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.1102(c) for ethylene production 
affected sources, specified in Sec.  63.1102(d) for cyanide chemicals 
manufacturing affected sources, and specified in Sec.  63.1102(e) for 
carbon black production affected sources, each owner or operator of an 
ethylene production affected source, cyanide chemicals manufacturing 
affected source, and carbon black production affected source subject to 
this subpart shall also submit the reports listed in paragraph (a)(10) 
of this section in addition to the reports listed in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (8) of this section, as applicable.
* * * * *
    (7) Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports described in Sec.  
63.1111 (except for acrylic and modacrylic fiber production affected 
sources, carbon black production affected sources, cyanide chemicals 
manufacturing affected sources, ethylene production affected sources, 
and polycarbonate production affected sources).
* * * * *
    (10) * * *
    (i) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.1102(c) for ethylene production affected sources, specified in Sec.  
63.1102(d) for cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected sources, and 
specified in Sec.  63.1102(e) for carbon black production affected 
sources, within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test required by this subpart or applicability assessment required by 
Sec.  63.1103(f)(3)(iv), the owner or operator must submit the results 
of the performance test or applicability assessment following the 
procedures specified in paragraphs (a)(10)(i)(A) through (C) of this 
section.
    (A) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the 
performance test or applicability assessment to the EPA via CEDRI, 
which can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The 
data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of 
the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file 
consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on 
the EPA's ERT website.
    (B) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the 
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. 
The results of the performance test or applicability assessment must be 
included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file 
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit 
the ERT generated package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (C) CBI. Do not use CEDRI to submit information you claim as CBI. 
Anything submitted to CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. Although we do 
not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if an owner or operator 
wishes to assert a CBI claim for some of the information submitted 
under paragraph (a)(10)(i)(A) or (B) of this section, then the owner or 
operator must submit a complete file, including information claimed to 
be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the 
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact 
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and 
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy 
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file 
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via EPA's CDX as 
described in paragraphs (a)(10)(i)(A) and (B) of this section. All CBI 
claims must be asserted at the time of submission. Furthermore, under 
CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled to confidential 
treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions data available to 
the public. Thus, emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will 
be made publicly available.
    (ii) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in 
Sec.  63.1102(c) through (e), the owner or operator must submit all 
subsequent Notification of Compliance Status reports required under 
paragraph (a)(4) of this section in PDF format to the EPA via CEDRI, 
which can be accessed through EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). All 
subsequent Periodic Reports required under paragraph (a)(5) of this 
section must be submitted to the EPA via CEDRI using the appropriate 
electronic report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart beginning no later than the 
compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.1102(c) through (e) or once the 
report template has been available on the CEDRI website for 1 year, 
whichever date is later. The date report templates become available 
will be listed on the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by 
the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in 
which the report is submitted. Although we do not expect persons to 
assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim, then submit a 
complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. 
Periodic Reports must be generated using the appropriate template on 
the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or 
other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the 
medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI 
Office, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Road, Durham NC 27703 to the 
attention of the applicable person specified in paragraphs (A) through 
(C) of this section. The same file with the CBI omitted must be 
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this 
paragraph. All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. 
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled 
to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions 
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be 
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.

(A) Ethylene Production Sector Lead
(B) Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Sector Lead
(C) Carbon Black Production Sector Lead
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Due date.The owner or operator shall submit the Notification of 
Compliance Status for each affected source 240 days after the 
compliance date specified for the affected source under this subpart, 
or 60 days after completion of the initial performance

[[Page 66129]]

test or initial compliance assessment/subsequent required performance 
test or subsequent compliance assessment, whichever is earlier. 
Notification of Compliance Status reports may be combined for multiple 
affected sources as long as the due date requirements for all sources 
covered in the combined report are met.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 63.1111 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory 
text, (b) introductory text, and (c) introductory text to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.1111  Startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

    (a) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Before May 18, 2022, 
the requirements of this paragraph (a) apply to all affected sources 
except for acrylic and modacrylic fiber production affected sources and 
polycarbonate production affected sources. On and after May 18, 2022, 
the requirements of this paragraph (a) apply to all affected sources 
except for acrylic and modacrylic fiber production affected sources, 
carbon black production affected sources, cyanide chemicals 
manufacturing affected sources, and polycarbonate production affected 
sources. On and after July 6, 2023, the requirements of this paragraph 
(a) apply to all affected sources except for acrylic and modacrylic 
fiber production affected sources, carbon black production affected 
sources, cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected sources, ethylene 
production affected sources, and polycarbonate production affected 
sources.
* * * * *
    (b) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reporting requirements. 
Before May 18, 2022, the requirements of this paragraph (b) apply to 
all affected sources except for acrylic and modacrylic fiber production 
affected sources and polycarbonate production affected sources. On and 
after May 18, 2022, the requirements of this paragraph (b) apply to all 
affected sources except for acrylic and modacrylic fiber production 
affected sources, carbon black production affected sources, cyanide 
chemicals manufacturing affected sources, and polycarbonate production 
affected sources. On and after July 6, 2023, the requirements of this 
paragraph (b) apply to all affected sources except for acrylic and 
modacrylic fiber production affected sources, carbon black production 
affected sources, cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected sources, 
ethylene production affected sources, and polycarbonate production 
affected sources.
* * * * *
    (c) Malfunction recordkeeping and reporting. Before May 18, 2022, 
the requirements of this paragraph (c) apply only to acrylic and 
modacrylic fiber production affected sources and polycarbonate 
production affected sources. On and after May 18, 2022, the 
requirements of this paragraph (c) apply only to acrylic and modacrylic 
fiber production affected sources, carbon black production affected 
sources, cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected sources, and 
polycarbonate production affected sources. On and after July 6, 2023, 
the requirements of this paragraph (c) apply only to acrylic and 
modacrylic fiber production affected sources, carbon black production 
affected sources, cyanide chemicals manufacturing affected sources, 
ethylene production affected sources, and polycarbonate production 
affected sources.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-24204 Filed 11-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P