health-protective risk screening assumptions are below 10-in-1 million
for the Tier 2 farmer exposure scenario. Tier 3 screening analyses of
mercury exposure due to fish ingestion determined that the maximum HQ
for mercury would be less than 2 as explained in section III.C.4 of
this preamble. The EPA is confident that this hazard estimate would be
reduced to a HQ 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. Considering all of the health risk
information and factors discussed above, as well as the uncertainties
discussed in section III of this preamble, we propose that the risks
posed by HAP emissions from the Black Carbon Production source category
are acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to
determine whether the current emissions standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. In light of the cancer risk
being below 1-in-1 million and the noncancer chronic and acute risks
being below established levels of concern as well as the low potential
for multipathway risks, we propose to conclude that the existing
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
    The emissions data for the Carbon Black Production source category
indicate that the following environmental HAP are emitted by this
category: Arsenic, cadmium, HCl, hydrofluoric acid, lead, mercury
(methyl mercury and mercuric chloride), and POMs. The screening-level
evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental effects
associated with emissions of these environmental HAP from the Carbon
Black Production source category indicated that there are no
exceedances of Tier 2 screening values for PB-HAP, no exceedances of
the average modeled concentration around each facility (i.e., the
average concentration of all off-site data points in the modeling
domain) for acid gases, and, for lead, we did not estimate any
exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. In addition, we are unaware of
any adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by this source
category. Therefore, we do not expect there to be an adverse
environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source
category and we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more
stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy,
safety,

and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.

D. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?

1. Major Source Technology Review
    As described in section III.B of this preamble, the technology
review focused on the identification and evaluation of developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since
the MACT standards were promulgated. In conducting the technology
review, we reviewed various informational sources regarding the
emissions from the Carbon Black Production major source category. The
review included a search of the RBLC database, reviews of air permits
for carbon black production facilities, and meetings with industry and
the trade association (summarized in the docket for this action). We
reviewed these data sources for information on practices, processes,
and control technologies that were not considered during the
development of the Carbon Black Production NESHAP. We also looked for
information on improvements in practices, processes, and control
technologies that have occurred since the development of the Carbon
Black Production NESHAP for major sources.
    After reviewing information from the aforementioned sources, we did
not identify any developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies used at carbon black production facilities since
promulgation of the MACT standard.
    Based on the technology review, we are proposing that it is not
necessary to revise the existing standards because we did not identify
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies.
Additional information on our technology review can be found in the
memorandum, Technology Review for Carbon Black Production Source
Category, which is available in the docket for this action.
2. Area Source Technology Review
    We performed a technology review of the Carbon Black Production
area source NESHAP. As part of that review, we determined that there
are no area sources in this source category currently in operation.
Given this and the overlap in the requirements for major and area
sources, we are concluding that it is not necessary to make changes to
the existing area source standards as a result of this review. For more
information on the determination that there are no sources subject to
the area source standard see the memorandum, Identification of Area
Sources for the Carbon Black Production NESHAP, available in the docket
for this action.

E. What other actions are we proposing?

    In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are
proposing four other revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing
revisions to the SSM-related provisions of the MACT rule in order to
ensure that they are consistent with the decision in Sierra Club v.
EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), 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. We are also proposing to require electronic reporting
and annual tune-up requirements for applicable process heaters/boilers.
Lastly, we are proposing that owners and operators of carbon black
production process vents subject to the rule conduct performance tests
every 5 years to demonstrate continued compliance with the NESHAP. A
discussion of these proposed changes follows.
1. SSM
a. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the D.C. Circuit Court vacated portions of two regulatory
provisions governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM, which
were promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112. Specifically, the court
vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR
63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions
standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM
exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112
standards apply continuously. Consistent with the court's decision in
Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in this rule that apply
at all times. We are also proposing several revisions to cross-
references of SSM exemptions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. We also are
proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the SSM exemption as further described below.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so.
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption, which
currently appears at 40 CFR 63.1108, and any reference to SSM
requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY that apply to carbon black
production affected sources. For example, we are proposing to eliminate
the incorporation of the requirement that the source develop an SSM
plan. Additionally, we are proposing to eliminate and revise certain
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption.
The EPA is also proposing several similar SSM-related revisions to 40
CFR part 63, subpart YY to remove SSM-related referenced provisions of
40 CFR part 63, subpart SS (National Emission Standards for Closed Vent
Systems, Control Devices, Recovery Devices and Routing to a Fuel Gas
System or a Process). These revisions are discussed in greater detail
below (see sections IV.E.1.b through j of this preamble).
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
consideration the impacts of the SSM exemption as it relates to startup
and shutdown periods and is proposing a 13-minute startup work practice
standard. This added provision is required for safety purposes in the
absence of the SSM exemption and is discussed further below (see
section IV.E.1.i of this preamble).
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are, by
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2)
(containing regulatory definition of ``malfunction''). The EPA
interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during
periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section
112 standards. The EPA's interpretation has been upheld as reasonable.
See United States Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-10 (D.C. Cir.
2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources must
be no less stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best controlled
similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less
stringent than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best
performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in
CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing sources when
setting emission standards. See, e.g., National

Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir.
2013) (noting that ``average emissions limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing about how the
performance of the best units is to be calculated''). While the EPA
accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA
section 112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of
that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the
same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during
routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the
source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory
language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section
112 standards.
    As the D.C. Circuit Court recognized in United States Sugar Corp v.
EPA, accounting for malfunctions in setting standards would be
difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of
malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and
given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the
frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might
occur. See United States Sugar Corp., 830 F.3d at 608 (discussing work
practice standards and explaining that ``the EPA would have to conceive
of a standard that could apply equally to the wide range of possible
boiler malfunctions, ranging from an explosion to minor mechanical
defects. Any possible standard is likely to be hopelessly generic to
govern such a wide array of circumstances.''). As such, the performance
of units that are malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable.
See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999)
(``The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of
data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an
agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific
information, rather than to `invest the resources to conduct the
perfect study.' ''). See also Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011,
1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no general limit,
individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset
situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory
limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of third parties,' such as
strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of
other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise
of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification in
advance by regulation.''). In addition, emissions during a malfunction
event can be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of
source operation. For example, if an air pollution control device with
99-percent pollutant removal goes off-line as a result of a malfunction
(as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire)
and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days
to shut down, the source would go from 99-percent control to zero
control until the control device was repaired. The source's emissions
during the malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal
operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period
would exceed the annual emissions of the source during normal
operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions
could lead to standards that are not reflective of, and significantly
less stringent than, levels that are achieved by a well-performing non-
malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 in
a way as to avoid such a result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions is
consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of
the statute.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in
releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events
because the EPA had information to determine that such work practices
reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers. 80
FR 75178, 75211 through 14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider
whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type
of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information
to identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a
standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide
any such information.
    In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction
event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among
other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and
rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the
source's failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in
fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable, and was not
instead caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40
CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
CAA section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
b. Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart YY (and Referenced 40
CFR Part 63, Subpart SS)
    The EPA assessed existing applicable provisions that apply to
carbon black production affected sources under 40 CFR part 63, subpart
YY (including references to 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS), and we are
proposing to eliminate the applicability of provisions that are no
longer appropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM
exemption. The revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY are discussed in
sections IV.E.1.c through i of this section. The revisions to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart YY related specifically to references to 40 CFR part
63, subpart SS are discussed in section IV.E.1.j of this preamble.
c. General Duty
    Section 63.1108(a)(5) states that the emission standards of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart YY (including the Carbon Black MACT standards) do not
apply during periods of SSM. However, the paragraph maintains that
owners and operators still have a general duty to implement measures to
prevent or minimize excess emissions and that the measures to be taken
to minimize excess emissions during these times shall be identified in
the SSM plan (if applicable).
    Similarly, 40 CFR 63.1111(a)(2) states that, during ``periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the owner or operator of an
affected source subject

to this subpart YY shall operate and maintain such affected source
(including associated air pollution control equipment and [continuous
parament monitoring systems] (CPMS)) in a manner consistent with safety
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions to
the extent practical. The general duty to minimize emissions during a
period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction does not require the owner
or operator to achieve emission levels that would be required by the
applicable standard at other times if this is not consistent with
safety and good air pollution control practices, nor does it require
the owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions
if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved.''
    The current language in 40 CFR 63.1108(a)(5) and 40 CFR
63.1111(a)(2) characterizes the general duty to minimize emissions
during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there
is no longer a need to maintain the general duty language of 40 CFR
63.1108(a)(5) and 63.1111(a)(2) as owners and operators would be
required to comply with the Carbon Black emission standards at all
times (including during periods of SSM). Therefore, the EPA is
proposing to remove the applicability of requirements at 40 CFR
63.1108(a)(5) (as specified in the proposed 40 CFR 63.1108(a)
introductory text revisions) and 40 CFR 63.1111(a)(2) (as specified in
the proposed 40 CFR 63.1111(a) introductory text revisions).
d. SSM Plan
    We are proposing to remove the applicability of requirements at 40
CFR 63.1111(a) (as specified in the proposed 40 CFR 63.1111(a)
introductory text revisions) requiring owners and operators to develop
an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements
related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the
applicability of the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be
subject to emission standards during such events. The applicability of
a standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample
incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM plan
requirements are no longer necessary.
e. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to remove the applicability of the provisions of
40 CFR 63.1108(a)(1) and (2) (as specified in the proposed 40 CFR
63.1108(a) introductory text revisions) which exempts sources from
standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the D.C. Circuit
Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision
and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standards
apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing
to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
f. Performance Testing
    The proposal does not include the language that precludes startup
and shutdown periods from being considered ``representative'' for
purposes of performance testing, and instead allows performance testing
during periods of startup or shutdown if specified by the
Administrator. As in 40 CFR 63.997(e)(1), performance tests conducted
under this subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions because
conditions during malfunctions are often not representative of normal
operating conditions. The EPA is also proposing to add the
applicability of the requirements at 40 CFR 63.1108(b)(4)(ii)(B) (as
specified in the proposed 40 CFR 63.1108(b)(4)(ii)(B) revisions) that
require the owner and operator maintain records of 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. Finally, the EPA is proposing to add the
applicability of language clarifying that the owner and operator make
such records available to the Administrator upon request (as specified
in the proposed 40 CFR 63.1108(b)(4)(ii)(B) revisions).
g. Recordkeeping
    We are not proposing to change the language at 40 CFR 63.1109(a)
requiring owners and operators of each affected source to keep copies
of reports. However, we are proposing to completely remove the
applicability of the requirements at 40 CFR 63.1111(b) (as specified in
the proposed 40 CFR 63.1111(b) introductory text revisions), which
eliminates periodic SSM reports, consequently eliminating the
requirement to keep a copy of this report. These requirements are no
longer appropriate for startup and shutdown because SSM plans will no
longer be required and the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and
reporting applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and
shutdown. In the absence of special provisions applicable to startup
and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason
to retain additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
Furthermore, in lieu of the requirements applicable to malfunctions in
40 CFR 63.1111(b), we are proposing the applicability of the
recordkeeping requirements at 40 CFR 63.1111(c)(1). The regulatory text
we are proposing to apply at 40 CFR 63.1111(c)(1)(i) differs from 40
CFR 63.1111(b) in that 40 CFR 63.1111(b) requires the creation and
retention of a record for each malfunction during which excess
emissions occurred, including total duration of all malfunctions for a
reporting period. The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to
any failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the
source record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than
the total duration of all malfunctions with which excess emissions
occurred. For each failure to meet an applicable standard, the EPA is
also proposing to revise the rule to include the applicability of the
requirements at 40 CFR 63.1111(c)(1)(ii) (as specified in the proposed
40 CFR 63.1111(c) introductory text revisions). This provision requires
that sources keep records that include a list of the affected source or
equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet the
standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss
calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available,
or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. Furthermore,
the EPA is proposing to add the applicability of the requirements at 40
CFR 63.1111(c)(1)(iii) (as specified in the proposed 40 CFR 63.1111(c)
introductory text revisions) requiring sources keep records of any
corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or
usual manner of operations, and actions taken to minimize emissions in
accordance with the general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR
63.1108(a)(4)(ii). The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep
records of this information to ensure that there is adequate
information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure
to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the
source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has
failed to meet an applicable standard.
h. Reporting
    We are proposing to remove the applicability of the requirements at
40 CFR 63.1111(b) (as specified in the proposed 40 CFR 63.1111(b)

introductory text revisions) which describes the reporting requirements
for SSM. When applicable, 40 CFR 63.1111(b)(1) requires sources to
report actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were
consistent with their SSM plan. When applicable, 40 CFR 63.1111(b)(2)
requires sources to report actions taken during SSM events when actions
were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate the applicability of the requirements at 40 CFR
63.1111(b)(2) that require reporting of whether the source deviated
from its SSM plan, including required actions to communicate with the
Administrator, and the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.1111(b)(1) that
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements. We are
proposing to remove the applicability of the requirements at 40 CFR
63.1111(b)(2) for reasons discussed above and because 40 CFR
63.1111(b)(2) describes an immediate report for startups, shutdown, and
malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable standard but
did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require owners and
operators to report when actions taken during SSM were not consistent
with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required.
i. Proposed 13-Minute Startup Control Device Bypass Provision
    In order to address safety concerns related to the elimination of
applicability of the SSM-related provisions when demonstrating
compliance with standards under the Carbon Black Production NESHAP, we
are proposing that the provisions specified in 40 CFR 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, unless complying with the 13-minute startup control
device bypass provision. In accordance with the requirements of CAA
section 112(h), we are proposing a work practice standard to apply as
follows: During periods of startup, when the percent excess oxygen of
the collected vapor is greater than or equal to 3 percent, the closed
vent system to the control device may be bypassed for the period when
the excess oxygen concentration is greater than or equal to 3 percent
or for 13 minutes, whichever time is shorter. At all other times, the
use of a bypass line on a closed vent system to divert emissions
subject to the requirements in Table 8 to 40 CFR 63.1103(f) to the
atmosphere or to a control device not meeting the requirements
specified in Table 8 of this subpart is an emissions standards
violation.
    We are proposing this work practice standard because it is not
feasible to enforce or prescribe an emission standard during startup.
Due to the combustible nature of the tail gas contained in the ductwork
and primary bag filter at carbon black facilities, a CCD cannot be
safely operated until the contents of the ductwork and primary bag
filter are below 3-percent excess oxygen. If a CCD is used while the
excess oxygen content is 3 percent or above, this could lead to an
explosion at the facility.
    After further discussions with the ICBA, we determined that the 13-
minute allotment to bypass the CCD, corresponds with the minimum time
necessary to completely purge the ductwork and primary bag filter of
the facility representing the lowest production rate. A lower
production rate results in a lower flow rate through the ductwork,
leading to a longer period of time to completely purge the ductwork and
primary bag filter. Some facilities that operate using a higher
production rate, will be able to purge the line in less than the 13-
minute allotment. To address this variability, we are proposing to
require that once facilities are under 3-percent excess oxygen content,
they must start controlling emissions to meet the applicable emission
limit. This requirement minimizes emissions from higher production rate
facilities, that can properly purge the ductwork and primary bag filter
in less than the 13-minute period.
    In order to further reduce emissions during the 13-minute startup
work practice period, we are proposing to require that facilities
operate using the minimum load for standard starting operating
procedures. This requirement will reduce the amount of new HAP being
generated during the 13-minute startup period, by limiting the quantity
of tail gas being produced, thus, reducing the amount of HAP being
released.
    All facilities in this source category bypass the combustion
control device until the excess oxygen concentration drops below 3-
percent and use the minimum load for standard starting operating
procedures during startup, therefore, this practice represents the best
performers and represents the MACT floor. We did not identify
additional measures to reduce emissions during this period, and,
therefore, are proposing a standard based on the MACT floor. Based on
conversations with industry, there are no other provisions that would
need to be proposed as a result of the elimination of the SSM-related
provisions being proposed with this action. For additional information
on the proposed work practice requirement during periods of startup,
see the file, SSM Email correspondence with ICBA, available in the
docket for this action.
j. 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart SS Revisions
    In keeping with the elimination of the SSM exemption, we are also
proposing in the Carbon Black Production MACT standards at 40 CFR
63.1103(f)(4) to remove the applicability of SSM-related exemption
provisions from 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS referenced by the Carbon
Black Production MACT standards under 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY,
similar to the revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY discussed under
sections IV.1.E.c through h of this preamble. SSM-exemption related
language being proposed for removal includes specific compliance SSM-
related provisions/language such as ``except during periods of start-
up, shutdown and malfunction specified in a referencing subpart'';
``other than periods of startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions'';
language requiring that an SSM plan be prepared and followed; language
referencing operations during periods of SSM not constituting
representative conditions for the purpose of a performance test;
language allowing the exclusion of SSM data when determining compliance
with a standard; excursion language related to SSM periods; and SSM-
related record requirements.
2. Electronic Reporting
    The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of carbon black
production facilities submit 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). 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
this action.
    The proposed rule requires that performance test results collected
using test methods that are supported by the

EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website \23\
at the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through
the use of the ERT or an electronic file consistent with the xml schema
on the ERT website, and other performance test results be submitted in
portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT.
The proposed rule requires that NOCS reports be submitted as a PDF
upload in CEDRI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For periodic reports, the proposed rule requires that owners and
operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit
information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed template for
these reports is included in the docket for this action.\24\ The EPA
specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall
design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Proposal Form 5900-484 Carbon Black Periodic Report,
available at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. These
circumstances are (1) outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which preclude
an owner and operator from accessing the system and submitting required
reports and (2) force majeure events, which are defined as events that
will be or have been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the
affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the
affected facility that prevent an owner and operator from complying
with the requirement to submit a report electronically. Examples of
force majeure events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or
equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility.
The EPA is providing these potential extensions to protect owners and
operators from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully
submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of their
control. In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of
needing additional time to report is within the discretion of the
Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
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, 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. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \25\ to
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's
Agency-wide policy \26\ developed in response to the White House's
Digital Government Strategy.\27\ For more information on the benefits
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,
referenced earlier in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews,
August 2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \26\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \27\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Boiler and Process Heater Provisions
    As a result of the EPA's assessment of the MACT standards that
currently apply to the Carbon Black Production source category under 40
CFR part 63, subpart YY, the EPA was made aware that there may be
instances where carbon black production process vents at affected
sources, route emissions to a boiler/process heater for use as fuel gas
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/process heater for use as fuel
gas. The EPA assumed that these boilers/process heaters would be
subject to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD, Industrial, Commercial,
and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP (Boiler MACT).
However, under the Boiler MACT, process heaters/boilers covered under
another standard (as with the Carbon Black Production MACT) would not
be subject to the Boiler MACT. Specifically, boilers that are used as
control devices for other NESHAP standards, where at least 50 percent
of the heat input to the boiler is provided by the NESHAP-regulated gas
stream would not be subject to the Boiler MACT. This was an unintended
consequence of the Carbon Black Production MACT rule. We are,
therefore, proposing that applicable boilers/process heaters that
receive tail gas for use as fuel gas must comply with annual tune up
requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(3)(iii). The proposed
annual boiler/process heater tune-up requirements are similar to what
is included for gas 1 units under the Boiler MACT.
4. Performance Test Frequency
    The EPA is proposing to revise the MACT standard compliance
provisions for the Carbon Black Production source category to require
owners and operators of carbon black production affected source process
vents subject to the rule conduct performance tests every 5 years. The
EPA has determined that an initial performance test is insufficient to
demonstrate continued compliance over time. Thus, this proposed
revision is necessary to ensure continued compliance with standards.

F. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    Amendments to the Carbon Black Production standards proposed in
this rulemaking for adoption under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) and
CAA section 112(d)(6) are subject to the compliance deadlines outlined
in the CAA under CAA section 112(i). New sources, (i.e., sources that
commence construction or reconstruction after proposal of the standard)
must comply with the standard immediately upon start-up. Existing
sources, as described in CAA section 112(i) provides that the
compliance date shall provide for compliance as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than 3 years after the effective date of the
standard. (``Section 112(i)(3)'s three-year maximum compliance period
applies generally to any emission standard . . . Association of Battery
Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 672 (D.C. Cir. 2013).) In determining
what compliance period is as expeditious as practicable, we consider
the amount of time needed to plan and construct projects and change
operating procedures by affected sources. The final action is not
expected to be a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the
effective date of the

final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section
112(d)(10).
    The EPA is proposing several changes that would impact new and
ongoing compliance requirements for carbon black production affected
sources under 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY. These changes include: (1)
Process vent emission standards being expanded to cover all applicable
(based on an applicability threshold) carbon black production process
vents; (2) the requirement to conduct performance tests every 5 years
when demonstrating compliance with process vent emission control
requirements; (3) boiler and process heater tune up requirements; (4)
several SSM-related changes (changes proposed as a result of removing
the applicability of the SSM exemption from the requirements); (5) 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
(6) the addition of requirements to submit reports electronically. The
compliance applicability dates vary for listed items one through three,
and four and five.
    The EPA is proposing that, 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: (1) Process vent emission standards being expanded to cover
all applicable (based on an applicability threshold) carbon black
production process vents; (2) the requirement to conduct performance
tests every 5 years when demonstrating compliance with process vent
emission control requirements; and (3) boiler and process heater tune
up requirements by 1 year after the date the final rule is published in
the Federal Register. The 1-year allowance for existing sources to
comply with the rule is based on the EPA's assessment that owners and
operators will need time to plan, determine applicability of process
vent requirements, and implement performance testing and control
requirements (which could include equipment/retrofit investments to
comply with new requirements). The EPA is also proposing that, if
applicable, all carbon black production affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction after January 14, 2021, must be in
compliance with the: (1) Process vent emission standards being expanded
to cover all applicable (based on an applicability threshold) carbon
black production process vents; (2) the requirement to conduct
performance tests every 5 years when demonstrating compliance with
process vent emission control requirements; and (3) boiler and process
heater tune up requirements upon initial startup, or the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, whichever is
later.
    For other proposed requirements related to SSM-related changes and
electronic reporting, the EPA is proposing that all carbon black
production affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before January 14, 2021, must be in compliance
with the: (1) SSM-related changes (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 180 days after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. All carbon black
production affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after January 14, 2021, must be in compliance with the:
(1) SSM-related changes; (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 upon initial startup, or the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, whichever is
later. Based on our assessment, for existing sources, the EPA considers
a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance period
practicable for complying with SSM-related and electronic reporting
requirement change planning and implementation.
    For SSM-related requirement changes, we believe 180 days is
sufficient for owners and operators of affected sources to familiarize
themselves with the operational, monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping changes associated with the SSM-related requirement
changes. Additionally, 180 days is sufficient for owners and operators
of affected sources to comply with the alternative work practice
standard that addresses safety concerns as a result of removing the
applicability of SSM-related provisions when demonstrating compliance
with standards under the Carbon Black Production NESHAP.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also proposing to change the applicability of requirements
for SSM by removing the applicability of the exemption from the
requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing
the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. 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.
    For electronic reporting changes, the EPA's 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 this sort of regulated
facility generally requires 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.
    We solicit comment on the proposed compliance periods.
Specifically, we request that comments in support of, and in opposition
to, the proposed compliance periods for the differing requirements
provide supporting

information as to why or why not the compliance periods proposed are
sufficient/insufficient.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    The EPA estimates that there are 15 production facilities in the
Carbon Black Production major source category that will be subject to
the Carbon Black Production NESHAP affected by the proposed 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. We are not currently aware of any planned
or potential new or reconstructed carbon black production facilities in
the source category.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    While we are broadening the scope of the current standard, setting
annual tune up requirements for process heaters/boilers, removing the
SSM exemption, and establishing a work practice standard for periods of
startup, we do not have data to determine quantitatively the reduction
in HAP emissions resulting from this action. Nevertheless, we do not
anticipate that this action will result in significant HAP emission
reductions.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    Costs were developed on a per facility basis, and all facilities
were determined to have similar costs. Costs were valued in 2019
dollars. Costs were broken into three separate categories based on
proposed requirements: Initial Applicability Test, Performance Test,
and Boiler/Process Heater Maintenance Costs.
    Initial applicability testing costs include costs associated with
the proposed requirement that process vents located after the MUF 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 results in the vent stream concentration
located after the MUF to fall below the HAP applicability concentration
threshold (260 ppmv).
    Performance test costs include costs associated with the proposed
requirement to conduct emissions tests at the subject process vents
every 5 years starting in the first year of the proposed requirement.
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 proposed 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 following 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.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs associated with the
proposed 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 proposed 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. 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
proposed 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 proposed 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
proposed requirements for all facilities was estimated to be $118,000
and $135,000 at the 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates,
respectively.
    All carbon black producers subject to this rule were determined to
be large entities based on Small Business Administration standards.
Because the PV and EAV costs associated with the proposed revisions are
minimal, no significant economic impacts from the proposed amendments
are anticipated. Refer to the Carbon Black Economic Impact Memorandum,
available in the docket, for more information.

E. What are the benefits?

    Although the EPA does not anticipate any significant reductions in
HAP emissions as a result of the proposed amendments, we believe that
the action, if finalized as proposed, would result in improvements to
the rule, by broadening the current emission limit, requiring an annual
tune-up for boilers/process heaters, and revising the SSM standards
such that a standard applies at all times, including periods covered by
the proposed work practice standard. Additionally, the proposed
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. See section IV.D.3 of this preamble for more information.

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional
data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are
specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used
in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such
data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to
allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the
data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more
information on submitting data.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-
air-pollution/acetal-resins-acrylic-modacrylic-fibers-carbon-

black-hydrogen. The data files include detailed information for each
HAP emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR website, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505 (through the method described in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are
provided on the project website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/acetal-resins-acrylic-modacrylic-fibers-carbon-black-hydrogen.

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

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

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document
    that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2677.01. You
can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is
briefly summarized here.
    We are proposing 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/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 (rounded, 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.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the dockets
identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-
related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Desk Officer for
the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than February 16, 2021. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in
the Carbon

Black Production source category and would not be affected by this
action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III.A and IV.A and B of this preamble.

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

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in sections IV.A,
IV.B, IV.F, and IV.G of this preamble. As discussed in sections IV.A,
IV.B, IV.F, and IV.G of this preamble, we performed a demographic
analysis for each source category, which is an assessment of risks to
individual demographic groups, of the population close to the
facilities (within 50 km and within 5 km). In our analysis, we
evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer risks and noncancer
hazards from the Carbon Black Production source category across
different social, demographic, and economic groups within the
populations living near operations identified as having the highest
risks.
    Results of the demographic analysis performed for the Carbon Black
Production source category indicate that, for four of the 11
demographic groups, African American, people age 65 and up, people
living below the poverty level, and adults over 25 without a high
school diploma that reside within 5 km of facilities in the source
category is greater than the corresponding national percentage for the
same demographic groups. When examining the risk levels of those
exposed to emissions from carbon black production facilities, we find
nobody is exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and
nobody is exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. For
additional information see the memorandum, Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors For Populations Living Near Carbon
Black Production Source Category Operations, available in the docket
for this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-00233 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 70)]
[Notices]
[Page 17241-17242]
[DOCID:fr14ap09-116]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59710; File No. SR-NYSE-2009-39]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Implementing Revised Liquidity Credits for Supplemental Liquidity
Providers

April 6, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 31, 2009, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to implement revised liquidity credits for
Supplemental Liquidity Providers (``SLPs''). The text of the proposed
rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify the credits received by
supplemental liquidity providers (``SLPs'') when adding liquidity to
the Exchange, with effect from April 1, 2009. Currently, SLPs receive a
credit of $0.0015 per share when adding liquidity to the NYSE if the
SLP meets the 3% average or more quoting requirement in an assigned
security pursuant to Rule 107B. With effect from April 1, 2009, there
will be three separate tiers of credits for SLPs that meet the 3%
average or more quoting requirement in an assigned security pursuant to
Rule 107B:
     SLPs that add liquidity of an average daily volume
(``ADV'') \3\ of 100 million shares or less in the applicable month
will continue to receive a credit of $0.0015 per share when adding
liquidity to the NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Qualification for the different tiers of liquidity credits
will be based on the SLP's aggregate average daily trading volume in
the applicable month in all NYSE listed securities. See e-mail from
John Carey, Chief Counsel--U.S. Equities, NYSE Euronext, to Nathan
Saunders, Special Counsel, and Brian O'Neill, Attorney, Division of
Trading and Markets, Commission, dated April 2, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     SLPs that add liquidity of an ADV of between 100 million
shares and 250 million shares in the applicable month will receive a
credit of $0.0016 per share when adding liquidity to the NYSE.
     SLPs that add liquidity of an ADV of more than 250 million
shares in the applicable month will receive a credit of $0.0017 per
share when adding liquidity to the NYSE.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it is designed to provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing proposed rule change is effective upon filing
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2009-39 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2009-39. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/
shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing will
also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSE-
2009-39 and should be submitted on or before May 5, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-8415 Filed 4-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P