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be proposed to be withdrawn 180 days after the rule is amended, ``any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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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:<PHONE_NUMBER> 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

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.

    (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

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

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

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,

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.

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

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